^.  iJi- .  1 2- 


X  tint  m.tfA^k^^  ^ 

^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    by  <:Lj\n  £/    C/ \Ly\-V-Vn  OY-*. 


Division  ■  ■  ■  .W^Vrr;\_-r'. . . « 
Section  ..A-v:i~,-.'.'r:Vr. , 


MAY  231912 


iC4L 


INFANT  SALVATION 


AND 


Confessional 
Revision 


LUTHER    LINK 

Minister  of  the  Presbyteritin  Church  in  tlie 
United  States 


RICHMOND,   VA. 
ONWARD  PRESS,  PUBLISHERS 

1912 


Copyright,   1912,  by 
LUTHER  LINK 


PREFACE 


The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  has  been  wrestling  for  a  long  time 
with  the  matter  of  the  revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  in  one 
form  or  another.  First,  there  was  a  call  for  a  revision  of  the  proof- 
texts  attached  to  the  various  sections  by  way  of  giving  the  scriptural 
basis  for  these  statements.  This  has  taken  several  years  to  finish,  but 
the  work  is  illogical  and  incomplete  because  it  was  done  on  the  under- 
standing that  the  text  of  the  Confession  itself  was  not  to  be  touched; 
so  where  statements  were  not  capable  of  being  supported  by  Scripture 
proof  there  ordinarily  occurs  a  blank  instead  of  such  irrelevant  texts  as 
formerly  stood  in  many  places  for  proof.  The  proof-text  committee 
made  no  recommendation  of  change  in  the  Confession.  But  the  fact  that 
any  statements  are  incapable  of  proof  of  some  kind  calls  for  the 
revision  of  the  Confession  itself,  which  in  its  very  nature  is  simply  a 
declaration  to  the  world  of  what  we  believe  the  Bible  to  teach. 

Only  one  question  of  revision  of  the  text  of  the  Confession  has  so 
far  been  before  the  church  at  large,  and  that  is  the  revision  of  the 
third  section  of  chapter  ten,  commonly  called  the  "elect  infant  clause." 
Our  church  has  wrestled  with  this  question  for  a  number  of  years,  but 
seems  little  nearer  a  solution  of  it  than  when  the  agitation  began.  The 
anti-revisionists  insist  that  the  word  "elect"  shall  stand,  occupying  the 
inconsistent  and  even  contradictory  attitude  of  holding  that  they  believe 
in  the  salvation  of  all  dying  infants,  but  that  the  Bible  does  not  definitely 
teach  that  all  such  are  saved.  But  a  creed  should  contain  only  what  we 
are  able  to  reasonably  support  by  Scripture  proof.  They  fail  to  see 
that  it  is  inconsistent  to  talk  of  an  elect  class  of  dying  infants,  because 
an  elect,  that  is,  limited,  class  necessarily  excludes  the  counterpart  rem- 
nant of  the  non-elect  class.  It  may  be  esteemed  only  a  question  of  doubt, 
or  we  may  say  lack  of  knowledge,  respecting  this  non-elect  class  which 
is  thus  left  out,  but  it  is  understood  to  embrace  the  children  of  the 
heathen ;  and  the  application  of  the  word  "elect"  as  a  limiting  term  is  to 
the  children  of  the  church  as  contradistinguished  from  the  children  of 
the  heathen.  But  since  elect  and  non-elect  are  necessarily  counterparts, 
a  professed  knowledge  of  one  must  imply  a  corresponding  knowledge  of 
the  other;  and  if  we  are  ignorant  of  the  latter  class  we  must  of  necessity 
be  also  of  the  former.  The  idea  that  we  have  a  knowledge  of  an  elect 
class  of  dying  infants  is  therefore  a  simple  delusion,  and  it  is  inconsistent 
in  the  anti-revisionists  to  demand  absolute  proof  of  universal  infant 
salvation  as  a  necessary  prelude  to  the  elimination  of  the  word  "elect." 
If  they  know  nothing  of  a  non-elect  class  they  know  nothing  of  an 
elect  class,  and  the  Bible  is  as  silent  about  the  one  as  about  the  other. 


4  PREFACE. 

The  fact  is  that  the  Bible  does  not  speak  of  election  in  connection  with 
dying  infants.  The  question  of  their  election  must  therefore  be  an  infer- 
ence from  the  prior  fact  of  their  salvation.  The  demand  for  the  reverse 
order  of  logic,  namely,  that  the  fact  of  their  election  be  supplied  as  a 
basis  for  the  knowledge  of  their  salvation,  is  unreasonable  and  incon- 
sistent. We  have  no  more  knowledge  of  the  election  of  adults  than  of 
infants,  except  as  they  are  known  to  be  of  the  faith.  As  for  infants 
their  inability  to  exercise  faith  is  the  basis  of  our  judgment  and  knowl- 
edge that  it  is  not  required  of  them  unto  salvation.  This  rational  judg- 
ment of  common  sense  is  supported  by  the  Scripture  which  teaches  that 
the  little  ones  are  not  held  to  the  accountability  of  grown  people.  This 
is  .so .  perfectly  simple  that  every  unsophisticated  person  is  able  to  see 
it,  and  only  the  theologically  trained  are  blind  to  it.  Assuredly  there 
is  a  reason  for  this  blindness — this  balking  at  the  idea  that  even  the 
infant  children  of  unbelievers  and  heathen  are  saved  in  the  same  way  as 
the.  children  of  the  church. 

The  discrimination  which  has  been  made  is  apparently  the  result  of 
two  exegetical  blunders.  The  first  grows  out  of  the  doctrine  of  the  cove- 
nant .of  works  which  by  reason  of  the  fall  holds  every  soul  of  the 
human  race  guilty  of  Adam's  first  sin ;  and  the  logic  is,  that  because 
infants  are  just  as  subject  to  this  effect  of  the  fall  as  grown  people, 
therefore  thej'  are  just  as  liable  to  the  punishment  of  eternal  death  as 
grown  people.  The  logic  which  is  thus  so  confidently  relied  upon  is 
defective  and  inconclusive  in  view  of  the  fact  that  God  provided  salvation 
for  the  world.  Original  sin  is  confounded  with  the  final  judgments  of 
God  upon  the  simple  idea  that  guilt  is  obligation  to  punishment.  Infants 
are  guilty,  and  therefore  must  be  liable  to  punishment,  therefore  the 
children  of  the  heathen  must  be  lost,  especially  as  there  is  no  clear 
revelation  (they  think)  of  the  fact  that  they  are  saved.  Such  is  the 
one-sided  and  perverse  logic  of  those  who  believe  in  possible  or  probable 
infant  damnation;  and  this  is  the  real  secret  of  the  fact  that  the  anti- 
revisionists  hold  on  with  a  persistent  determination  to  the  idea  that  we 
really  know  nothing  of  the  salvation  of  the  infant  children  of  the 
heathen.  Our  church  has  simply  played  with  this  question,  and  the  sur- 
face of  it  has  hardly  been  scratched,  for  only  within  the  last  year 
have  the  real  merits  of  the  question  been  touched  in  the  recent  discus- 
sions of  infant  salvation.     At  least  this  is  the  way  it  appears  to  us. 

The  writer  was  for  a  long  time  cut  ofif  from  this  debate.  We  tried 
in  vain  to  get  published  an  answer  to  one  of  the  prominent  anti- 
revisionists  in  the  early  stage  of  the  discussion,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  writer  has  spent  years  of  time  in  the  study  on  the  theological 
questions  involved  in  this  discussion,  he  found  himself  shut  out  of  the 
discussion  and  forced  to  provide  his  own  means  of  access  to  the  reading 
public.  With  very  great  sorrow  the  writer  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
our  religious  press  is  free  to  a  very  limited  extent.  Instead  of  encourag- 
ing discussion  on  the  important  questions  which  come  up  for  decision, 
discussion   has  l)een  often  suppressed  by  the  arbitrary  decision  of  papers 


PREFACE.  5 

who  furnish  the  journalism  of  our  church.  The  consequence  of  this 
editorial  management  is  that  the  church  is  retrograding  and  reaching  a 
point  where  we  rarely  get  anything  discussed  except  in  the  most  super- 
ficial manner.  We  stand  in  imminent  danger  of  losing  our  birthright, 
because  of  the  shortsighted  policy  of  our  journals.  The  demand  for  light 
and  popular  and  brief  articles  is  fast  freezing  out  our  scholarship  or 
causing  it  to  go  into  hiding. 

The  writer  perceived  long  ago  that  the  merits  of  this  question,  namely, 
the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  had  never  received  an  adequate  dis- 
cussion or  investigation.  A  careful  reading  of  all  the  treatises  on  this 
subject  served  only  to  reveal  their  defective  nature,  so  we  took  up  the 
Scriptures  for  an  original  study  of  the  question,  and  wrote  a  number 
of  articles  as  the  passages  were  examined.  The  result  was  as  before 
mentioned.  We  were  shut  out  of  the  discussion.  We  now  appeal  to  the 
people  who  feel  enough  interest  in  the  truth  to  make  them  willing  to 
devote    some   earnest   thought   to   these   matters. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/infantsalvationcOOIink 


CONTENTS 


PAGE. 

Covenant  of  Works 15 

Relation  to  Covenant  of  Redemption  and  the  Atonement. 
Questioned  by  some  theologians.  Attitude  of  others.  Defini- 
tion of  covenant  of  works.  A  theological  conception.  In- 
ferred from  Gen.  2:  17.  Discussion  of  passage.  Account  of  it 
in  the  Larger  Catechism.  Dispensation  of  natural  law.  Con- 
fession in  ch.  7  not  the  same.  Shorter  Catechism  non-com- 
mittal. An  independent  judgment  needed.  Connection  be- 
tween Covenant  of  Works  and  Immediate  Imputation.  Teach- 
ings of  the  theologians.  Chas.  Hodge — A  promise  suspended 
upon  a  condition  and  corresponding  penalty  for  disobedience. 
Argues  from  new  covenant.  Criticism  of  argument  and  defini- 
tions. Teaches  that  God  did  more  than  once  offer  salvation  to  a 
legal  obedience.  This  a  great  mistake.  The  word  "covenant" 
should  not  be  applied  to  the  transaction  in  Eden.  The  Larger 
Catechism  gives  the  true  account  of  that  transaction.  Hodge 
thinks  perpetual  obedience  was  not  required.  But  appeal  to 
reason  on  this  question  is  invalid.  Discussion  of  "Parties  to 
the  covenant,"  and  kind  of  representation.  A.  A.  Hodge  adds 
nothing  by  finding  the  support  of  the  covenant  in  natural  moral 
obligation.  Ambiguity  of  "covenant."  Dabney's  account  of  the 
covenant.  Thornwell  saw  the  inconclusiveness  of  reasoning 
from  the  Genesis  passage.  Dabney's  argument  from  con- 
science. Tree  of  life.  Not  a  sacrament.  Parallel  between 
Adam  and  Christ.  Thornwell's  argument  from  the  repre- 
sentative character  of  Christ.  Imagines  indefectibility  with- 
out justification.  Argument  sought  in  the  Mosaic  system  25 
utterly  unsound.  Examination  of  Rom.  2:  6,  7.  Thornwell's 
interpretation.  Hodge's  interpretation.  Examination  of  Rom. 
7:  10;  8:  3,  and  the  argument  therefrom.  Examination  of 
Luke  10:  25;  Matt.  19:  16,  etc.  Conclusion  against  the  theory 
of  a  covenant  of  works.  Confession  should  be  revised  to  con- 
form to  the  Larger  Catechism. 

Original  Sin 31 

Original  sin  and  its  corollary  Immediate  Imputation.  De- 
fense of  Wesley  and  Watson  against  misunderstanding.  Not 
to  be  classed  with  Whitby.  Statement  of  Whitby's  views. 
Wesleyan  device  for  obviating  the  effects  of  Immediate  Im- 
putation. Dabney's  criticism.  Statement  of  Watson.  He  de- 
fends Arminius  and  the  Wesleyan  Methodists.  Arminius' 
statement  conpared  with  Westminister  Confession.  A  pity  that 
Watson  did  not  reject  the  covenant  of  works.  Miley  quoted. 
Suggestion  for  harmonizing  of  Wesleyan  and  Calvinistic  sys- 
tems. Discussion  of  Imputation.  The  noun  "imputation"  not 
found  in  Scripture.  "Impute"  almost  eliminated  by  Revised 
Version.  Dabney's  acknowledgment  that  the  Scripture  does  not 
directly  assert  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  us.  Distinction 
between  the  imputation  of  the  guilt   and   the   sin  questionable. 


8  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Dabney  founds  imputation  upon  covenant  of  works.  Dr. 
Hodge's  account  of  imputation.  Asserts  that  all  imputation 
is  the  same.  Adam's  sin  to  us,  our  sins  to  Christ.  Christ's 
righteousness  to  believers.  The  second  and  third  as  needless 
as  the  hrst.  Usage  of  "impute"  in  the  Old  Testament.  Rom. 
5:  13  the  same,  and  against  the  covenant  of  works  and  imme- 
diate imputation.  The  theory  contravenes  the  eternal  prin- 
ciples of  God's  Truth  and  Justice.  Bearing  of  Rom.  4:15. 
"Law  worketh  wrath,"  and  salvation  could  never  have  been 
otherwise  than  by  faith  in  God.  All  the  false  theories  con- 
nected with  the  covenant  of  works  depend  upon  the  single 
rotten  support  of  the  mistranslation  of  Rom.  5:  12.  Realism 
and  Immediate  Imputation  no  solution  of  the  difficulties  raised 
by  the  covenant  of  works. 

The  Covenant  Charter 44 

Covenant  wath  Abraham  the  charter  of  the  Church.  Church 
not  to  be  dated  from  Moses  or  Pentecost.  Proper  understand- 
ing of  the  promise  to  Abraham,  and  the  significance  of  the 
seal  of  highest  importance.  Passed  over  by  majority  of 
ecclesiological  writers  wdthout  proper  attention.  They  pursue 
a  defective  a  priori  method.  Study  of  church  in  its  historical 
development  the  necessary  preliminary  to  a  correct  definition. 
The  promise  to  Abraham  on  four  different  occasions  essent- 
ially one  promise  having  temporal  and  spiritual  elements. 
Interpretation  which  makes  two  separate  and  distinct  promises 
erroneous.  Seal  of  chapter  15  has  reference  to  ownership  of 
land.  Promise  of  chapter  17  a  spiritual  promise  and  the  seal 
a  spiritual  seal   to  the  Church. 

The  Promise  Absolute 48 

Not  a  mere  bargain  suspended  upon  conditions.  It  secures 
a  continuity  of  godly  seed  to  the  church.  Faith  the  channel 
through  which  the  blessing  should  come.  The  promise  is  to  the 
spiritual  children  of  Abraham.  But  it  was  committed  to  the 
visible  church,  and  constitutes  The  Great  Promise  of  Salva- 
tion to  Man.  John  M.  Mason's  view  of  the  covenant.  Should 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures. Meaning  of  the  word  "Covenant :"  Absolute  char-  50 
acter.  Definitions  of  Books  must  be  modified.  Definitions  of 
Hodge  and  Dabney.  Examination  of  Scripture  usage. 
Hosea  6:  7.  Old  translation  better  than  new.  Meaning  of 
"like  men."  Examination  of  other  covenants.  With  Noah. 
Testament  light  to  show  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  shed 
light  upon  its  real  nature  as  an  absolute  promise.  The  record 
in  Genesis  examined  with  this  in  view.  Covenant  with  Israel 
at  Sinai.  Conditional  in  form ;  an  argreement  between  God 
and  his  people.  Covenant  with  David.  New  covenant,  Jer. 
31  :  31.  Definition  of  covenant.  •  The  covenant  imposes  an 
obligation  which  does  not  wait  upon  individual  consent.  Rea- 
son for  conditional  form  of  Sinai  covenant.  Additional  New  56 
New  Testament  light  to  show  that  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham is  a  promise  of  salvation  to  the  true  people  of  God. 
Rom.  4:  II.  Gal  3:  16.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that 
Abraham  himself  understood  its  full  meaning.  Paul  gives 
exposition  in  Galatians  third  and  fourth  chapters  by  the 
contrast   between   the    law   and   the   promise. 


CONTENTS.  0 

PAGE. 

Views  of  Writers 60 

Kurtz.  Oehler.  Mason  and  Calvin.  Calvin's  statement 
examined.  Rom.  n:  16.  Rom.  15:  8.  Matt.  8:  12.  Several 
ecclesiological  writers  lay  little  store  by  the  patriarchal  age. 
The  generally  accepted  view  in  our  church  that  of  John  M. 
Mason,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  second  of  Calvin's 
inconsistent  interpretations.  The  first  account  correct,  and 
the  second  must  be  eliminated  and  a  dififerent  answer  sought 
to  the  question,  How  did  God's  covenant  with  Abraham 
constitute  the   church  ? 

False  Issues  and  Incosistent  Reasoning 64 

In  the  matter  of  Infant  Salvation.  Dr.  Webb's  incorrect 
starting  point  with  a  definition  which  assumes  the  point  to  be 
proved.  Too  much  time  devoted  to  proving  that  infants  are 
guilty.  This  is  not  the  question.  Dr.  Webb  starts  by  giving 
up  his  case.  If  the  Scriptures  are  silent  what  right  has  Theo- 
ology  to  lay  claim  to  a  settlement?  His  solution  of  no 
value.  Hardly  consistent  for  an  advocate  of  the  covenant 
of  works  and  immediate  imputation.  Infants  exempted  upon 
an  incorrect  interpretation  of  the  passage  which  says  that 
judgment  is  to  be  according  to  works.  Not  necessary  to 
show  that  infants  are  guiltless  in  order  to  show  that  they  are 
saved.  The  question  one  of  Scripture  teaching.  Philosophy 
can  give  no  help.  The  dictum  that  there  can  be  no  penal 
suffering  where  the  understanding  does  not  apprehend  its 
nature  is  unreliable.  The  difficulty  lies  in  regarding  sin  exclu- 
sively in  its  legal  aspect  as  a  breach  of  law.  This  is  not  Paul's 
account  of  sin.  Guilt  and  condemnation  to  eternal  punish- 
ment not  the  same.  Objection  to  "damnability."  Calvin 
unjustly  charged  with  teaching  infant  damnation.  His  posi- 
tion more  correct  than  that  of  later  theologians  who  credit 
Calvin  with  their  own  views.  Calvin's  positive  denial  that 
he  taught  an  antenatal  condemnation  or  reprobation.  Clash 
with   Castalio,   and   proper  interpretation  of   Calvin's  reply. 

Dr.  S.  S.  Laws  on  Infant  Salvation 69 

Depends  mainly  upon  the  classic  passages  in  Matthew  18: 
19,  and  commends  Calvin's  exposition.  Agrees  with  Calvin 
in  making  a  close  connection  between  the  passages.  Calvin 
evidently  applied  Matt.  19:  14  to  the  children  of  the  church, 
for  he  drew  from  it  an  argument  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism. This  requires  the  wrong  meaning  to  be  given  to  the 
phrase  "kingdom  of  heaven."  Should  be  understood  of 
heaven  itself  as  having  reference  to  children  in  general  who 
have  been  called  away  to  heaven  in  which  case  it  bears 
directly  upon  infant  salvation.  Argument  from  David's  child 
not  satisfactory  to  anti-revisionists,  because  a  child  of  the 
covenant.  Modifies  or  offsets  the  effects  of  the  rule  of 
judgment  according  to  works.  His  treatment  of  subject  best 
so    far   had. 

Rev.  H.  B.  Pratt  on  Infant  Salvation 71 

Adduces    Matt.     19:     14    and    Calvin's    interpretation    except 
that   he   considers   that   it   has    no   bearing   on    infant   baptism,, 
but    his    reasons     for    so    concluding    not    satisfactory.       His 
attempted    defense    of    Calvin    against    the    charge    of    teach- 
ing  infant    damnation    not    effective    because    only    those    who 


10  CONTENTS. 

PAGE, 
were  of  the  church  and  had  a  right  to  the  ordinance  were 
referred  to  as  saved  without  baptism.  His  general  defense 
of  Calvinism  and  the  Confession  ineffective.  Damaging  admis- 
sion on  p.  17  relative  to  the  meaning  of  elect  infant  clause. 
Suggested  substitution  of  "elect  persons  dying  in  infancy" 
shows  that  he  has  no  conception  of  the  real  problem.  Seeks 
to  broaden  out  the  application  of  Matt  19:  14  to  cover  all 
deceased  infants,  but  inconsistently  because  of  having  adopted 
Calvin's  interpretation.  Destroys  the  effective  use  of  the  pas- 
sage by  misinterpreting  both  members  of  the  phrase  "king- 
dom of  heaven."  Asserts  that  "the  kingdom  is  locally  on 
earth."  Brief  examination  of  the  word.  Another  bad  argu- 
ment from  Heb.  11.  Does  not  understand  the  true  spiritual 
meaning  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  He  supposes  that  it 
will  be  satisfied  by  the  salvation  of  the  infant  dead  of  the 
nations.  This  is  a  marvelous  interpretation  of  prophecy.  Dr. 
Pratt's  original  interpretation  of  the  parables  of  the  Great 
Supper  and  Marriage  of  the  King's  Son.  Similar  process  of 
interpretation  applied  to  Psalms.  Infant  salvation  should  not 
be  used  to  set  aside  the  prophecies  of  the  church's  glorious 
triumph. 


/o 


Scriptures  Examined 

Mark    10:    14;    Matt.    19:    14.     Meaning   of    "Of   such   is   the 
kingdom   of   heaven."     Quotation    from   the   Institutes   Ch.    16, 
Sec.   7,   and   interpretation.     Calvin   defended    from   charge   of 
teaching  infant  damnation.     Infant  salvation  asserted  in   Matt.     78 
18:14.    Exposition.    Meyer's  interpretation. 

The  Little  Ones.    Num.  14 :  31 80 

The  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  final  judgment,  but 
nevertheless  teaches  a  principle  of  judgment.  Luke  12:  48 
quoted    in    connection.     Isa.    5,    3,   4. 

Genesis  4:  6,   7 82 

God   deals  with   great  gentleness  with  the  first  erring  child, 
just  as  an  earthly  parent  if  wise  would  do.     Shows  the  trouble 
to  be   in   a   sinful   heart   and  desire.     The  treatment  to  be   ac- 
counted  for  by  his  youth.      An   a   fortiori   argument   to   show 
that    God    does    not    hold    little    children    to    the    responsibility 
of  grown  people.     Considerations  which  indicate  Cain's  youth. 
Numbers  31  :  18.     A  block  of  heathendom  incorporated  into  the     84 
church,    showing   God's   favor   to   the   heathen    children.     Deut. 
31  :     12,    13.      Special    provision    for    the    instruction    of    the 
heathen   children.     Jonah,    Ch.  4:    11.     Zechariah   13:   7.      "But     85 
I   will   turn   my   hand  to   the   little   ones.     Isaiah   40:    11.     The     86 
evangelist   of   Zion    announces    that   the   coming    Saviour    "will 
gather   the   lambs   in   his   arm   and   carry  them   in   his   bosom." 

The  Wording  of  the  Clause 87 

The  elect  infant  clause  should  be  so  changed  in  its  wording 
as  to  express  in  unambigious  language  a  belief  in  general  in- 
fant salvation.  "Elect"  must  be  eliminated  because  understood 
to  limit  the  class  spoken  of,  viz.,  dying  infants.  Infants  and 
other  incapables  must  be  treated  as  exceptional  classes.  A 
wording  suggested.  Section  2  should  be  omitted  and  the  ex- 
ceptional clause  allowed  to  follow  immediately  the  clause 
to  which  it  it  exceptional. 


CONTENTS.  II 

PAGE. 

Dr.  Webb's  Interpretation  and  Analysis 88 

Goes  to  emphasize  the  necessity  for  a  changed  wording. 
He  adopts  the  very  common  interpretation  which  takes  "elect 
infants"  to  cover  the  whole  of  the  elect.  But  "dying  in  infancy" 
makes  this  an  impossible  interpretation.  The  question  which  Dr. 
Webb  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  anti-Calvinist  purely  imagin- 
ary. If  elect  infants  die,  it  does  not  follow  that  non-elect  infants 
live  on.  The  interpretation  which  makes  "elect  infants"  co- 
incide with  "the  elect,"  does  not  accord  with  the  contest  in 
Sec.  I.  No  reason  why  the  same  class  should  be  so  designated. 
No  need  for  such  a  reference.  The  supposition  that  all  the 
non-elect  live  past  infancy  has  nothing  to  sustain  it  on  his 
account  of  Scriptures.  A  pure  assumption.  Also  that  all  penal 
suffering  must  be  apprehended  as  such  not  proved.  Negative 
argument  equally  unsatisfactory.  No  more  powerful  argu- 
ment for  revision  can  be  constructed  than  his  assertion  that 
nobody  but  Calvanists  can  understand  the  language  of  elect 
infant  clause.  If  an  elect  class  be  singled  out  of  dying  infants 
it  leaves  by  necessary  inference  a  non-elect  division  of  the 
same  class.  Dr.  Webb's  efforts  to  avoid  the  inference  unavail- 
ing.     Best   to   change   the    wording. 

Revision  of  Chapter  Seven 91 

General  sense  of  "covenant"  in  the  Confession.  This  the 
source  of  ambiguity  and  misunderstanding.  How  the  confes- 
sional statement  may  be  harmonized  with  the  Larger  Catechism. 
"Covenant"  used  of  the  law  considered  as  a  rule  of  life  in  Qu. 
97 — called  "a  covenant  of  works."  The  language  seems  to 
imply  that  the  law  was  offered  to  the  world  as  a  means  of 
justification  and  salvation.  Providential  aspect  of  the  law 
partly  justifies  use  of  word  "covenant."  Confession  ch.  19,  sec. 
6,  uses  similar  language,  using  "covenant  of  works"  in  the 
sense  of  "dispensation  of  law."  Meaning  of  promise  of  life  in 
section  2,  ch.  7,  suggestion  for  avoiding  ambiguity,  and  har- 
monizing with  catechism.  Expression  "made  himself  incap- 
able of  life."  Section  3  criticised.  Change  suggested.  State- 
ment regarding  Holy  Spirit  misleading  and  objectionable. 
Language  of  section  i  criticised.  The  word  "covenant"  needs 
definition. 

Does    General    Infant    Salvation    Conflict    with    the    Doctrine 

OF  Election  ? 94 

It  is  a  mistake  to  so  represent  it,  the  error  being  in  wrong 
understanding  of  "unconditional."  Contingent"  in  section  l 
criticised,  and  different  wording  suggested.  Exscision  of  sec- 
tion 2  suggested,  and  section  5  criticised  for  its  purely  ab- 
stract view  of  election.  Section  3  discussed  and  a  scriptural 
statement  of  election  and  pretention  suggested.  Comment  upon 
same.     Sections  4  and  5  should  be  omitted. 

Does  the  Doctrine  of  General  Infant  S.^lvatiox  Conflict  with  the 

Doctrine  of  the  Atonement  ? 98 

The  two  things  not  directly  connected;  but  if  the  infants  of 
the  heathen  are  non-elect,  it  is  clearer  that  they  are  excluded 
from  the  benefits  of  the  atonement,  and  so  easy  to  see  that 
in  this  case  they  must  be  lost.     The  limited  atonement  does,  in 


12  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

fact,  have  an  effect  upon  the  belief  in  infant  damnation.  The 
limited  atonement  taught  in  section  6.  No  objection  to  the 
first  statement.  But  the  last  sentence  uses  "redeemed"  in  the 
sense  of  providing  salvation,  and  limits  this  to  the  elect. 
This  obscures  the  gospel  message  to  the  world.  To  say  that 
"neither  are  any  others  redeemed  by  Christ"  is  incorrect  if 
"redeemed"  expresses  the  provided  propitiation.  The  language 
defective  and  misleading.  Addition  to  last  sentence  of  section 
6  suggested.  Larger  Catechism  Qu.  13  examined,  and  omis- 
sion of  words  suggested.  Important  that  the  gospel  for  the 
world  be  presented.  General  expression  of  desire  and  purpose 
in   this  discussion. 


Infant  Salvation 


AND 


Confessional  Revision 


REVISION   OF  THE  CONFESSION. 

ORIGIN     OF     THE     DIFFICULTIES. 

In  discussing  the  Revision  of  the  Confession,  it  seems  best  to  begin 
with  that  question  which  is  just  now  before  the  Presbyteries  for  their 
decision.  That  question  is  the  revision  of  the  elect  infant  clause  and 
section. 

The  last  Assembly  (1911)  simply  marks  time  on  this  question  by 
sending  down  a  wording  which  ornits  "elect"  in  the  first  clause,  but 
retains  it  in  the  second  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  apply  to  both.  Of 
course  there  is  nothing  gained  by  this,  and  it  simply  means  that  the  anti- 
revisionists  have  not  moved  a  peg  in  their  position,  and  are  determined 
not  to  yield  an  inch  until  driven  to  it  by  a  three-fourths  majority.  It 
would  be  easy  to  make  a  statement  of  simply  the  manner  of  infant  sal- 
vation, and  this  would  eliminate  "elect"  from  both  clauses,  leaving  out 
of  view  entirely  the  question  of  who  or  how  many  infants  and  idiots  are 
saved.  But  the  last  Assembly  has  given  the  death  blow  to  that  unworthy 
effort  to  avoid  the  implication  which  necessarily  goes  with  the  use  of 
"elect,"  in  the  limiting  sense.  Having  omitted  "elect"  from  the  first 
clause,  the  statement  becomes  what  anti-revisionists  have  all  along 
claimed  it  to  be,  a  statement  simply  of  the  way  in  which  infants  are 
saved.  But  when  the  parties  who  constructed  the  new  wording  came  to 
the  second  clause,  instead  of  omitting  "elect,"  and  making  it  a  strict 
parallel,  they  retained  "elect"  and  changed  the  wording  so  as  to  avoid 
the  clear  implication  that  all  of  these  classes  are  elect.  "So  also  are  all 
others  who  are  included  in  the  election  of  grace,"  etc.  Thus  what  they 
took  away  with  one  hand  they  restore  with  the  other.  They  appear  at 
first  to  take  away  "elect,"  and  seem  to  remove  the  difficulty,  else  why 
make  any  change?  But  they  restore  it  by  implication,  the  only  advantage 
being  that  the  inference  will  probably  be  overlooked.  This  appears  to 
be  simply  trifling  with  a  great  issue  and  to  be  beneath  the  dignity  of  a 
church  like  ours.  An  open  profession  of  faith  in  possible  or  probable 
infant  damnation, — or  better,  an  excision  of  the  clause, — is  infinitely 
superior  to  such  a  patent  dodge. 


14  IN  FAX  T  SALVATION  AND 

The  anti-revisionists  have  been  driven  to  the  wall,  and  forced  in  this 
way  to  acknowledge  that  they  do  believe  in  probable  infant  damnation, 
for  otherwise  they  would  not  insist  on  speaking  of  the  salvation  of  an 
elect  class  of  dying  infants  and  idiots. 

The  question  then  arises  at  once,  What  is  the  explanation  of  the 
tenacious  hold  which  infant  damnation  has  upon  many  of  our  people? 
One  explanation  we  dare  say  is  found  in  the  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of 
works  applied  to  the  particular  classes  in  question.  It  is  the  doctrine 
that  men  are  held  guilty  of  Adam's  act  of  disobedience  in  eating  the 
forbidden  fruit.  If  it  were  not  for  the  prior  theory  of  a  covenant  of 
works,  as  a  contract  between  God  and  Adam,  the  above  supposition 
would  appear  at  once  abhorrent  to  every  sense  of  justice  and  right. 
Its  acceptance  depends  purely  upon  the  alleged  fact  that  God  did 
it.  This  alone  silences  cavil,  for  "shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth 
do  right"?  So  positive  have  the  theologians  been  in  the  assertion 
of  this  strange  transaction  that  it  has  been  long  accepted  for  a  fact, 
and  men  have  forgotten  to  examine  the  foundation  upon  which  the 
alleged  fact  rests.  The  boldness  and  baldness  of  the  doctrine  of 
immediate  imputation  can  alone  account  for  that  dulling  of  the  sense  of 
justice  which  makes  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  seem  possible  not 
to  say  probable. 

The  second  mistake  consists  of  confounding  this  guilt  so  obtained  with 
final  judgment  and  eternal  damnation;  and  this  mistake  has  been  erron- 
eously attributed  even  to  Calvin  himself  by  one  of  our  book  writers, 
who  tried  inconsistently  to  make  Calvin  teach  the  doctrine  of  universal 
infant  salvation.  The  inconsistency  is  not  Calvin's.  He  really  held 
neither  of  these  positions,  for  he  does  not  discuss  at  all  the  salvation 
or  damnation  of  the  infants  of  the  heathen  as  a  class,  or  of  infants  as  a 
general    class    of   humanity. 

It  may  be  granted  that  had  God  provided  no  salvation  for  the  world 
the  inference  that  guilt  necessarily  means  final  death  would  hold;  but 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  a  salvation  has  been  provided,  it  is  false  and 
inconclusive  reasoning.  It  simply  shuts  its  eyes  to  the  most  important 
element  of  the  problem,  and  asks  everybody  else  to  be  equally  blind.  The 
anti-revisionists  appear  to  conclude  arbitrarily  that  Christ  could  not  die 
for  the  salvation  of  heathen  infants  as  well  as  for  the  balance  of  the 
world. 

The  idea  of  a  limited  atonement,  or  the  exclusive  application  of 
the  atonement  to  the  elect  only  tends  toward  this  same  end,  for  who 
knows  whether  the  dying  infants  of  the  heathen  are  elect,  independently 
of  Scripture  teaching  regarding  infant  salvation?  This  is  another 
theological  blunder  which  works  hand  in  hand  with  the  others.  This 
teaching  confounds  Christ's  work  of  atonement  with  salvation  in  fact, 
which  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  bringing  to  an  acceptance  of 
the  atonement  those  (adults)  who  are  capable  of  understanding  the 
plan,  and  in  producing  the  regeneration  by  which  even  those  who  die 
infants  are  similarly  born  again  by  God's  almighty  power. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  13 

The  setting  off  of  the  infants  of  the  heathen  in  the  doubtful  column 
is  furthermore  caused  by  the  superior  status  of  the  children  of  the 
church.  The  promise  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  has  been  taken  to  apply 
to  all  the  natural  children,  thus  embracing  all  the  children  of  the  church 
in  a  promise  of  salvation  to  the  exculsion  of  all  others.  This  is  an 
exegetical  blunder  which  is  in  direct  conflict  with  Paul's  interpretation  of 
that  covenant.  Paul  tells  us  that  the  promise  had  reference  to  the 
spiritual  children  in  its  highest  significance,  rather  than  the  natural  seed. 
They  were  not  all  Israel  who  were  of  Israel  as  a  people.  Who  knows 
then  whether  all  the  dying  infants  of  the  heathen  may  not  have  been 
embraced  in  that  covenant,  just  as  we  are  told  that  all  believers  among  the 
Gentiles  are  so  included?  In  proportion  as  we  know,  or  have  reason  to 
believe,  that  they  are  saved  we  know  that  they  are  so  included.  They  have 
been  excluded  upon  a  false  theory,  and  if  we  know  that  all  the  children 
of  the  church  dying  infants  are  saved,  it  is  not  because  we  previously 
knew  them  to  be  partakers  of  the  covenant  of  salvation,  but  because 
they  are  taken  away  before  they  come  to  years  of  discretion  or  responsi- 
bility, and  this  is  precisely  the  same  ground  upon  which  we  base  a  belief 
in  the   salvation   of  the   dying  infants  of  the   heathen. 

When  these  theological  blunders  are  swept  away  the  light  of  divine 
truth  will  shine  out  so  clearly  that  there  will  be  no  longer  any  doubt  about 
the  salvation  of  all  who  are  not  able  to  apprehend  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion which  God  prepared  for  the  world.  We  shall  then  cease  to  demand 
a  knowledge  of  their  election  as  a  reason  for  a  faith  in  their  salvation. 
We  shall  see  that  we  put  the  cart  before  the  horse,  and  this  will  tend  to 
clarify  our  ideas  on  the  general  subject  of  election.  We  shall  see  that 
as  regards  the  personnel  of  the  elect  there  is  no  difference  whether  we 
take  the  viewpoint  of  God  in  a  past  eternity  or  the  viewpoint  of  the  end, 
or  during  the  present  at  any  time  we  judge  like  the  apostles  the  elect 
to  be  those  who  appear  to  be  faithful  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
There  can  be  no  conflict  between  the  theoretical  and  the  practical  view- 
point, because  God's  knowledge  is  according  to  truth,  and  he  sees  the  end 
from  the  beginning. 

Let  us  proceed  now  to   a   study  of  the  covenant  of  works. 

THE    COVENANT    OF   WORKS. 

The  covenant  of  works,  so-called,  has  had  a  very  wide  influence  upon 
our  theology,  affecting  even  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  itself.  It 
unquestionably  has  had  its  influence  in  shaping  men's  conception  of 
infant  salvation  and  damnation.  In  view  of  a  provided  atonement  for 
the  world  it  seems  impossible  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation 
could  have  ever  seemed  to  be  possible  or  even  rational,  except  for  the 
teaching  that  men  are  held  responsible  for  the  sin  of  Adam  in  eating  the 
forbidden  fruit,  not  merely  that  they  share  by  heredity  the  death  which  he 
induced  in  himself  by  his  disobedience,  but  that  men  are  initially  guilty 
and   consequentially  corrupt.     But  this  teaching  is  a  great  mistake.     The 


i6  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

covenant    of    works,    so-called    in    its    theological    conception,    is    a    most 
unfortunate   and   far   reaching  blunder. 

In  Presbyterian  circles  it  is  pretty  widely  known  that  the  covenant  of 
works  is  rejected  by  Shedd.  It  is  also  rejected  by  Dr.  Augustus  H. 
Strong,  of  Rochester  Seminary,  a  Baptist  theologian,  and  by  William  B. 
Pope,  of  Manchester,  England,  a  Methodist  theologian.  The  present 
writer  formed  his  own  opinion  before  reading  any  of  these  authors, 
by  his  own  independent  study;  in  fact,  he  does  not  yet  know  how  Shedd 
supports  his  contention,  and  as  for  the  others,  while  they  decidedly  reject 
the  coveannt  of  works  they  make  no  argument  directly  against  it.  Some 
of  our  own  theologians  appear  to  be  partly  aware  that  the  foundations  of 
this  covenant  are  insecure.  Dabney,  although  he  accepts  it,  begins  his 
argument  in  favor  of  it  by  answering  objections  and  his  argument 
professes  to  be  simply  a  statement  of  the  points  given  in  the  standard 
authors. 

Dr.  Thornwell  has  acknowledged  that  it  is  not  a  legitimate  conclusion 
from  the  narrative  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  he  attempts  to 
support  it  in  other  ways.  He  says,  "It  is  true  that  Moses  says  nothing 
directly  of  a  promise"  made  to  Adam,  and  that  "he  gives  no  intimation  of 
the  nature  of  the  reward  which  was  promised  to  fidelity."  He  "does  not 
even  affirm  that  one  was  proposed."  This  being  the  case  the  question 
will  occur.  How  do  we  know  then  that  there  was  such  a  covenant  ? 
The  answer  must  be.  We  do  not  know  that  God  promised  eternal  life  to 
Adam  and  his  posterity  upon  a  limited  obedience.  The  inference  has 
been  inconclusively  drawn  from  the  words  "but  of  the  tree  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  for  in  the  day  that  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  (wilt)  surely  die."  God  had  given  the  privilege 
of  access  to  all  the  trees  of  the  garden  with  this  single  exception.  Adam 
was  commanded  not  to  eat  of  that  fruit,  and  warned  that  a  breach  of  the 
commandment  meant  death.  It  is  commonly  understood  that  the  words 
are  a  threat,  and  the  inference  is  drawn  that  if  God  threatened  death  for 
disobedience,  he  must  have  implied  a  promise  of  life  for  obedience.  But 
a  little  inspection  will  show  how  much  influence  the  imagination  has  been 
allowed  in  the  shaping  of  the  conception.  In  the  first  place,  how  do  we 
know  that  this  is  a  threat?  We  may  read  "thou  will  certainly  die"  (lit. 
dying  thou  wilt  die)  more  justly  than  "thou  shalt  surely  die."  It  is  a 
simple  future,  and  since  "shall"  is  so  largely  used  in  the  king  James 
version  even  with  the  second  and  third  persons,  as  a  simple  future,  it  is 
impossible  to  say  that  the  translators  so  intended  it.  But  this  does 
away  with  the  idea  of  the  threat,  and  makes  it  a  simple  warning  of  the 
natural  and  inevitable  result  of  the  disobedience.  There  was  no  intrinsic 
danger  in  the  fruit  itself,  but  it  stood  as  the  symbol  of  evil,  the  symbol 
of  disobedience,  because  it  could  not  be  touched  except  through  a  dis- 
regard of  God's  word  and  a  breach  of  his  positive  command.  And  what 
God  warned  them  of  actually  took  place.  They  did  not  die  physically  in 
the  day  that  they  ate  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  but  they  did  die  spiritually, 
and   they  knew   it.     They  were   aware  of   an   immediate   change  in   their 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  17 

relations  to  God,  and  at  once  they  became  afraid  of  him.  Now  if  there 
was  no  threat,  but  only  a  warning,  how  is  it  possible  to  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  God  promised  them  eternal  life  for  a  limited  obedience? 
Dr.  Dabney  says  that  the  correlative  of  death  is  life.  Yes,  but  the 
correlative  of  death  is  not  eternal  life.  Nor  is  there  a  word  said  about 
a  limited  obedience,  by  which  the  promise  of  eternal  life  could  be 
earned.  Of  course  as  God's  creatures  men  were  under  the  natural  and 
necessary  obligation  of  obedience,  and  they  were  bound  to  believe  God 
who  cannot  lie.  And  yet  they  did  disbelieve  him,  or  at  least  Eve  did, 
thus  making  him  a  liar,  and  they  disobeyed  his  positive  command,  thus 
becoming  rebels  against  his  authority,  and  this  without  the  slightest 
provocation. 

There  is  no  serious  objection  to  the  use  of  the  word  covenant  in  this 
connection,  if  it  only  means  a  dispensation  of  God's  providence.  This 
is  clearly  the  idea  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  but  it  is  not  the  conception 
of  the  theologians,  nor  does  it  appear  to  satisfy  the  confessional  state- 
ment in  chapter  seven.   Par.  2. 

The  Larger  Catechism  (Q.  20),  after  speaking  of  man's  creation,  and 
circumstances  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  tells  us  that  God  entered  into  "a 
covenant  of  life  with  him,  upon  condition  of  personal,  perfect  and 
perpetual  obedience,  of  which  the  tree  of  life  was  a  pledge;  and  for- 
bidding him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  upon 
pain  of  death."  If  the  tree  of  life  stood  as  a  pledge,  God  must  have 
made  an  implied  promise,  but  not  of  eternal  life  upon  a  limited  obedience. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  language  "personal,  perfect,  and  perpetual  obedi- 
ence," absolutely  excludes  the  theological  conception  of  that  covenant. 
It  was  a  covenant  with  man,  it  does  not  sa}^  with  Adam ;  and  it  required 
personal  obedience  of  all,  and  there  was  no  limit  because  it  was  to  be 
perpetual.  This  must  have  been  simply  a  dispensation  of  natural  law, 
and  its  nature  is  satisfactorily  explained  in  Q.  93,  where  the  moral  law 
is  described  as  the  declaration  of  the  will  of  God  to  mankind,  directing 
and  binding  every  one  to  personal,  perfect,  and  perpetual  conformity  and 
obedience  thereunto,  in  the  frame  and  disposition  of  the  whole  man, 
soul  and  body,  and  in  the  performance  of  all  those  duties  of  holiness 
and  righteousness  which  he  oweth  to  God  and  man;  promising  life  (not 
eternal  life)  upon  the  fulfilling,  and  threatening  death  upon  the  breach 
of  it."  This  makes  the  matter  perfectly  clear  that  it  was  a  dispensation 
of  natural  law,  and  God  can  be  said  to  have  "entered  into"  such  a  cove- 
nant only  in  the  sense  that  he  promised  immunity  so  long  as  the  obedience 
was  maintained.  This  immunity  is  truly  inferred  from  the  threat,  or 
warning  concerning  death,  and  this  is  all  that  can  be  justly  inferred  from 
the    record. 

Now  if  the  Larger  Catechism  stood  by  itself,  or  if  the  confessional  state- 
ment of  chapter  seven  agreed  with  it,  our  interpretation  on  this  question 
would  be  unassailable,  but  unfortunately  the  account  of  God's  covenant 
with  man,  as  it  is  given  in  chapter  seven,  seems  irreconcilable  with  the 
statements  of  the  Larger  Catechism.     The  "covenant  with  man"  becomes 


i8  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

transformed  in  that  chapter  into  a  covenant  of  works  with  Adam  "wherein 
Hfe  was  promised  to  Adam,  and  in  him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition 
of  perfect  and  personal  obedience."  It  will  be  observed  that  the  word 
perpetual  is  not  there,  and  the  word  personal  is  made  very  naturally  to 
apply  to  Adam  only,   since  it  was  in  him  that  life   was  promised. 

It  seems  fair  to  conclude  from  the  wording  that  the  committee  which 
constructed  the  statement  of  the  Confession  proper  must  have  been  a 
different  committee  from  that  which  drew  up  the  statements  of  the 
Larger  Catechism.  And  this  is  a  historical  fact.  We  turn  to  Q.  12  of  the 
Shorter  Catechism,  and  find  that  it  is  not  sufiiciently  definite  to  be  placed 
on  one  side  or  the  other ;  it  may  be  understood  either  way  according  *o 
one's  preconceived  idea.  In  form  it  follows  more  closely  the  Larger 
Catechism,  for  the  covenant  is  with  man,  and  the  clauses  are  parallel 
with  that  statement,  although  the  absence  of  both  "personal"  and 
"perpetual"  might  be  regarded  as  making  it  conform  to  the  Confession. 
It  looks  like  a  compromise  constructed  to  suit  each  of  two  irreconcilable 
parties. 

It  was  with  profound  sorrow  that  the  writer  discovered  this  hopeless 
confusion  in  the  Westminster  standards.  Alas,  alas,  if  the  covenant  is 
the  moulding  idea  of  the  Calvinistic  theology,  it  follows  a  very  uncertain 
guiding  star.  But  the  unbiased  mind  will  easily  distinguish  between 
Calvinism,  as  the  word  stands  for  a  system  of  Scripture  truth,  and 
certain   errors   which   have   crept   into   the   Westminster   Confession. 

If  the  discovery  of  the  irreconcilable  difference  between  the  Confession 
and  the  Larger  Catechism  will  serve  to  show  the  subscribers  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  that  that  document,  with  all  its  excellence,  is 
not  perfect,  there  will  be  an  important  compensation  for  the  sorrow  which 
such  discovery  must  produce.  There  has  been  too  much  a  tendency 
to  trust  in  man-made  documents,  and  a  feeling  of  undue  satisfaction 
with  the  heritages  of  the  past  is  exceedingly  inimical  to  advancement  in 
the  present  and  the  future.  Let  us  not  be  content  to  let  other  people  do 
our  thinking  for  us,  but  ever  be  mindful  of  the  fact  that  we  are  called 
upon  to  do  our  own  thinking,  and  are  responsible  for  our  own  conclu- 
sions. The  tendency  to  accept  perviously  constructed  statements  without 
question  will  account  for  a  number  of  the  long  standing  errors  of 
theology. 

This  so-called  covenant  becomes  the  fountain-head  of  that  hurtful 
theory  of  immediate  imputation,  which  has  played  such  an  important 
part  in  the  contentions  of  Arminianism  and  Calvinism. 

Let  us  now  see  what  the  theologians  have  to  say  about  this  covenant. 
Dr.  Chas.  Hodge  (p.  117)  starts  out  by  giving  the  Shorter  Catechism 
statement,  coupled  with  a  part  of  answer  ten.  He  says,  however,  that 
"this  statement  does  not  rest  upon  any  express  declaration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures," although  it  is  to  be  taken  as  a  "concise  and  correct  mode  of 
asserting  a  plain  scriptural  fact,  namely,  that  God  made  to  Adam  a 
promise  suspended  upon  a  condition,  and  attached  to  disobedience  a 
certain  penalty."     This  is  all  that  is  meant  by  the  term  covenant,  he  says. 


CONFESSIOX.^L  REVISION.  19 

He  tells  us  that  the  word  itself  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  applied  to  this 
transaction,  and  yet  he  endeavors  to  justify  this  extra-scriptural  use  of 
the  word  by  the  claim  that  the  New  Covenant  is  spoken  of  in  antithesis 
to  this  covenant,  as  well  as  to  that  of  Sinai,  without  appearing  to  recog- 
nize that  this  is  a  pure  assumption,  and  that  the  logic  is  a  circle.  How 
could  it  be  used  in  antithesis  to  a  covenant  that  did  not  exist,  according 
to  the  Scripture  use  of  the  word?  The  antithesis  is  first  assumed  and 
then  the  covenant  argued  from  the  antithesis,  when  the  antithesis  must 
depend  upon  the  prior  assumption  that  the  Eden  transaction  was  a  cove- 
nant. The  new  covenant,  he  says,  is  "new  not  merely  in  antithesis  to 
that  made  at  Sinai,  but  new  in  reference  to  all  legal  covenants  whatever" ; 
he  therefore  thinks  it  "plain  that  the  Bible  does  represent  the  arrangement 
made  with   Adam  as  a  truly   federal   transaction." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  antithesis  to  the  covenant  of  works  is  gotten 
in  under  a  general  statement  concerning  "legal  covenants."  This  term 
as  descriptive  of  the  Eden  transaction  embodies  a  most  serious  error, 
namely,  that  God  more  than  once  proposed  the  law  as  a  method  of  salva- 
tion. This  is  a  most  serious  misinterpretation  of  the  Sinai  covenant,  and 
besides  the  classing  of  a  transaction  before  the  fall  with  one  after  the 
fall  is  not  to  be  justified  by  simply  saying  that  they  were  legal.  The 
fact  remains  that  in  Scripture  the  term  covenant  is  definitely  applied  to 
the  one  and  is  not  applied  to  the  other.  The  classification  fails  to  take 
any  account  of  the  difi'erence  in  the  situation  of  man  in  the  two  cases. 
The  one  was  with  man  un fallen,  and  the  other  with  man  fallen  and  sinful. 

This  sort  of  reasoning  will  not  stand  the  test  of  a  moment's  examina- 
tion. It  tacitly  assumes  what  has  just  before  been  excluded  by  definition 
when  it  was  said  that  the  so-called  covenant  of  works  is  only  a  promise 
suspended  upon  a  condition.  If  this  is  all  that  is  meant,  by  what  species 
of  logic  is  it  classed  with  the  Sinai  covenant?  Before  such  classification 
can  be  made,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire.  What  promise  and  what 
condition?  It  is  tacitly  assumed  that  the  promise  of  life  means  eternal 
life.  But  this  could  not  be,  if  life  was  promised  to  perpetual  obedience, 
as  the  larger  catechism  puts  it.  What  condition?  A  limited  obedience? 
And  Adam's  obedience  for  the  race,  and  his  righteousness  to  be  credited 
to  them?  Let  it  be  recognized  that  to  argue  the  covenant  of  works  in 
its  theological  conception  from  the  Scripture  use  of  the  phrase  "new 
covenant"  is  just  as  far  from  conclusive  as  anything  can  be.  If  the 
covenant  of  works  is  constructed  out  o^  this  sort  of  gossamer  web.  the 
sooner  it  is  swept  away  the  better.  It  is  assumed  that  all  legal  cove- 
nants   are    covenants    of    salvation. 

But  the  bad  logic  is  not  the  only  thing  bad  in  this  presentation,  perhaps 
the  chief  difficulty  lies  in  the  teaching  that  God  did  more  than  once  (for 
the  word  is  plural,  "legal  covenants")  propose  to  man  a  schem.e  of 
salvation  by  law.  Dr.  Hodge  says,  "The  Scriptures  know  nothing  of  any 
other  than  two  methods  of  attaining  eternal  life;  the  one  that  which 
demands    perfect    obedience,    and    the    other    that    which    demands    faith. 


20  INFANT  SAW  AT  ION  AND 

If  the  latter  is  called  a  covenant,  the  former  is  declared  to  l)e  of  the 
same  nature." 

By  what  right  is  it  asserted  that  Grod  ever  did  propose  obedience  to 
law  as  a  scheme  of  salvation?  If  the  assertion  is  grounded  upon  such  a 
conception  of  the  Sinai  covenant,  it  is  a  gross  misinterpretation  of  that 
covenant,  and  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  God  never  did  propose 
but  one  method  of  salvation,  unless  he  did  it  in  the  covenant  of  works; 
but  we  failed  to  find  it  there. 

Dr.  Hodge  says.  "It  is  of  great  importance  tiiat  tlie  scriptural  form 
of  presenting  truth  be  retained."  Would  it  not  then  be  better  to 
abandon  even  the  word  covenant  as  a  description  of  the  unique  position 
of  Adam  in  the  garden  before  the  fall,  because  it  is  so  liable  to  mislead. 
As  a  dispensation  of  God's  providence  it  was  entirely  different  from  the 
plan  of  redemption  which  he  has  been  working  out  ever  since.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  God's  glorious  plan  of  salvation  in 
Christ  is  simph-  a  patched  up  scheme  to  take  the  place  of  a  previous  plan 
of  salvation  bj-  law  which  failed.  It  is  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of 
the  omnipotent  God  to  teach  that  he  seriously  proposed  a  scheme  of 
salvation  which  he  knew  could  not  work  at  all.  The  Larger  Catechism 
has  given  us  the  truth  on  this  subject,  let  us  hold  to  it,  and  correct  what 
is  out  of  harmony  with  it ;  and  let  us  abandon  even  the  word  as  a 
description  of  a  dispensation  of  pure  law.  since  it  finds  no  parallel  even 
in  the  general  use  of  "covenant,"  according  to  which  (in  the  phrase 
"covenant  of  grace")  it  covers  the  whole  dispensation  of  the  plan  of 
redemption. 

According  to  the  true  view  of  the  matter  there  was  no  condition  of 
a  covenant  implied  in  God's  words,  "In  the  Any  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
wilt  certainly  die."  Of  course,  if  Adam  did  not  die,  he  would  live,  it 
required  no  promise  to  give  assurance  of  that.  The  fact  of  his  creation 
was  assurance  of  continued  existence  as  long  as  he  was  sinless ;  but  there 
is  no  possibilitj-  of  constructing  a  promise  of  assured  eternal  life  in 
righteousness  out  of  this  natural  relation  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator. 
Dabney  says  the  correlative  of  death  is  life;  true,  but  the  correlative  of 
death  is  not  eternal  life.  Death  is  naturally  and  necessarily  eternal,  unless 
God  intervene  to  bring  about  a  resurrection;  but  this  is  not  true  of  life. 
Rather  is  it  true  that  all  life  that  is  created  must  come  to  an  end  unless 
upheld  by  God  the  Creator.  There  can  be  no  eternal  life  except  that 
which  God  gives  and  secures.  It  seems  therefore  to  be  a  mistake  to 
find  the  condition  of  a  covenant  promise  in  Gen.  2:  17. 

Dr.  Hodge  asks  the  question  "whether  perpetual  as  well  as  perfect 
obedience  was  the  condition  of  the  covenant  with  Adam,"  and  tells  us 
that  it  is  probably  to  be  answered  in  the  negative,  but  appears  to  be 
unmindful  of  the  fact  that  this  answer  is  unconsistent  with  the  Larger 
Catechism.  He  says,  "It  seems  to  be  reasonable  in  itself  and  plainly 
implied  in  the  Scriptures  that  all  rational  creatures  have  a  definite  period 
of  probation."      But   reason   cannot   supply  the  deficiency  if   revelation   is 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  21 

silent  on  the  subject.  There  can  be  no  data  for  reasoning  on  the  matter, 
except  what  is  found  in  the  Scriptures.  And  if  the  case  of  the  angels  be 
made  a  basis  for  inference,  it  is  against  the  supposition  that  God  offered 
to  the  whole  race  of  man  eternal  life  upon  the  limited  obedience  of  one 
man.  Every  angel  had  to  stand  for  himself,  and  reason,  as  far  as  it  can 
speak  on  the  subject,  would  pronounce  this  the  just  course.  To  hold  a 
man  responsible  for  another's  sin  is  repugnant  to  man's  innate  sense  of 
justice,  and  to  reward  one  man  for  what  has  been  done  by  another  is 
about  as  contrary  to  reason  as  the  other.  If  man  is  held  criminally 
responsible  for  Adam's  individual  act,  there  ought  to  be  a  clear  state- 
ment of  Scripture  to  prove  it;  but  this  statement  cannot  be  produced;  the 
single  passage  in  Romans  which  has  been  supposed  to  assert  it  is  a  gross 
mistranslation.     Rom.   5,    12. 

Under  the  heading,  "Parties  to  the  Covenant  of  Works,"  Dr.  Hodge 
argues  that  "the  parties  to  the  original  covenant  were  God  and  Adam," 
since  Adam  was  the  representative  of  the  whole  race.  This,  he  thinks, 
sustains  the  assertion  that  "everything  said  to  him  had  as  much  reference 
to  his  posterity  as  to  Adam  himself.  But  this  is  a  groundless  assumption, 
if  anything  more  is  meant  than  that  his  fall  would  affect  his  posterity. 
There  is  nothing  to  show  that  Adam's  sustained  righteousness  for  a 
certain  time  would  have  been  credited  to  his  posterity.  If  he  had  had 
a  child  before  his  fall,  of  course  that  child  would  have  inherited  the 
same  holy  nature,  but  to  say  that  it  would  be  exempt  from  a  personal  test 
of  that  righteousness  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  proof. 

Dr.  Hodge  says  the  Jews  inferred  the  representative  character  of 
Adam  from  the  record  in  Genesis.  But  did  they  infer  the  covenant 
headship  for  which  Dr.  Hodge  contends?  If  they  did,  their  inference  is 
worth  no  more  than  his  own.  Adam  was  necessarily  a  representative, 
inasmuch  as  he  was  to  be  the  progenitor  of  the  race,  but  any  other 
representation  needs  proof.  Dr.  Hodge  understands  Paul  to  say  that 
"the  sentence  of  condemnation  passed  on  all  men  for  one  offense,"  but 
this  is  not  what  Paul  says;  and  if  it  is  not  found  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Romans  it  is  nowhere  to  be  found.  The  impression  that  Paul  said  it  is 
due  to  mistranslation.  What  he  does  say  is,  that  death  passed  through 
unto  all  men,  whereupon  (epi  ho,  "upon  which")  all  sinned,  so  that 
through  one  that  sinned  the  judgment  came  or  resulted  unto  condemna- 
tion. Of  course  then  it  is  a  mistake  to  say,  "This  great  fact  (meaning 
Adam's  representative  character)  is  made  the  ground  on  which  the  whole 
plan  of  redemption  is  founded."  The  conception  of  Christ's  representa- 
tive character  as  the  same  as  that  of  Adam  is  something  which  the  Scrip- 
ture nowhere  asserts,  as  the  famous  passages  in  i  Cor.  15  and  Rom.  5 
go  to  show.  But  upon  the  understanding  that  they  are  the  same  Dr. 
Hodge  argues  that  "to  deny  the  principle  in  the  one  case  is  to  deny  it  in 
the  other,"  p.  121.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  "principle 
involved  in  the  headship  of  Adam  underlies  all  the  religious  institutions 
ever   ordained   by    God    for    men.     *     *     *     It    is    therefore   one    of   the 


22  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

fundamental  principles  (he  says)  both  of  natural  and  of  revealed 
religion." 

In  opposition  to  this  statement  it  may  be  said  that  covenant  headship, 
so  far  from  being  a  fundamental  principle  cannot  be  shown  to  be  a 
principle  at  all,  or  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  atonement.  Christ 
becomes  a  representative  of  his  people,  it  is  true,  but  not  therefore  a 
covenant  head,  he  is  their  ransom,  who  brings  them  rescue  from  death  not 
by  what  he  covenanted  but  by  what  he  did. 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  adds  nothing  to  the  argument,  but  rather  confuses  the 
issue  by  trying  to  make  the  idea  of  natural  moral  obligation  pass  for  a 
covenant.  By  way  of  explaining  the  "contracting  parties"  he  gives  this 
account:  (i)  God,  the  moral  Governor,  by  necessity  of  nature  and  rela- 
tion demsmding  perfect  conformity  to  the  moral  law.  (2)  Adam  the  free 
moral  agent,  by  necessity  of  nature  and  relation  under  the  inalienable 
obligations  of  moral  law."  This  account  of  the  relations  is  correct;  the 
trouble  is,  the  covenant  is  thus  made  to  take  its  origin  from  a  necessity 
of  nature;  in  other  words,  the  natural  moral  relation  is  erected  into  a 
covenant.  There  would  be  no  objection  to  this  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
Larger  Catechism  describes  this  covenant,  but  it  is  not  satisfactory 
proof  of  the  existence  of  "contracting  parties"  to  a  covenant  defined  as  a 
reciprocal  promise.  It  is  about  as  easy  to  say  that  Adam  contracted  with 
reference  to  his  creation  before  he  had  an  existence.  If  this  was  physi- 
cally impossible,  the  other  seems  morally  impossible,  that  is  to  say,  it 
is  morally  impossible  that  God  and  man  should  have  contracted  in  refer- 
ence to  something  that  was  already  and  necessarily  a  finished  fact. 
"Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it  why  hast  thou  made 
me  thus?"  But  the  real  difficulty  lies  in  the  ambiguity  of  the  word 
"covenant,"  by  which  an  easy  transition  is  made  from  the  one  meaning 
to  the  other  without  perceiving  that  the  word  is  thus  made  to  stand  for 
totally  different  ideas.  A  dispensation  of  pure  law  is  turned  into  a 
conditional  promise  in  which  the  condition  is  limited  obedience,  and  the 
promised    reward    eternal    life. 

If  any  one  doubts  that  this  is  really  the  process,  he  has  only  to  refer 
to  Dr.  Hodge's  own  language  in  which  he  explains  the  condition  of  the 
covenant  to  be  "the  promises  of  life  and  favor.  Matt.  19,  15,  17;  Gal. 
3.   12." 

A  reference  to  the  passages  will  serve' to  show  that  "the  promises  of  life 
and  favor"  are  understood  to  be  eternal  life.  The  citations  imply  false 
interpretations  of  both  passages,  which  apparently  makes  them  nothing  less 
than  a  gross  misconception  and  misinterpretation  of  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment economy.  But  since  Dr.  Thornwell  has  entered  into  this  subject  at 
length,  while  yielding  the  other  points,  it  is  best  to  reserve  further 
examination  of  this  point  until  we  hear  what  he  has  to  say. 

Dr.  Dabney's  inference  from  the  supposed  threat  in  Genesis  2  has 
been  already  noticed  in  a  cursory  way,  but  it  deserves  a  more  careful 
attention.     His.  argument  is  this  :    "That  the  promise  of  life  was  clearly 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  23 

implied  is  shown  by  the  fact  itself,  that  life  is  the  correlative  of  death, 
which  was  threatened  in  the  covenant."  But  the  correlative  of  death 
is  not  eternal  life,  which  means  a  condition  of  indefectible  holiness.  If 
Adam  had  not  died  he  would  have  lived,  that  is  plain,  but  that  he  would 
have  secured  eternal  life,  an  indefectible  state,  by  a  limited  obedience  is 
by  no  means  indicated.  Death  is  naturally  and  necessarily  eternal,  in 
itself  considered,  but  not  so  with  life.  Nor  will  it  do  to  argue  that 
because  death  is  naturally  eternal,  therefore  its  correlative  must  be 
eternal  life.  It  would  not  follow  if  God  had  threatened  eternal  death  for 
disobedience;  but  God  did  not  threaten  eternal  death  as  the  result  of 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  for  he  had  plans  for  robbing  death  of  its 
prey,  and  of  bringing  eternal  life  out  of  death. 

Dr.  Thornwell  was  more  perspicacious  than  the  other  theologians  when 
he  perceived  that  a  promise  could  not  justl}^  be  inferred  from  a  threat. 
He  says,  "Unless  the  Scriptures  directly  or  indirectly  authenticate  the 
promise,  we  are  not  to  presume  that  the  promise  w-as  made.  I  am  willing 
to  admit,"  he  says,  "that  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  the  threatening 
We  cannot  deduce  one  contrary  from  another.  The  sole  promise 
involved  in  a  threatening  is  impunity  as  long  as  the  threatening  is 
respected."  He  might  have  gone  further  and  pointed  out  that  even 
the  threat  itself  is  an  uncertain  inference  from  the  language  used, 
but  his  admission  goes  far  enough  to  destroy  the  very  foundation 
of  the  covenant  of  works,  as  it  is  conceived  by  himself  and  other 
theologians. 

Dabney  argues  again  from  the  law  of  conscience,  which  "expects 
life  for  obedience,  as  death  for  transgression."  But  does  the  natural 
law  of  conscience  teach  us  to  expect  eternal  life  as  the  result  of  a 
limited  obedience?  No,  indeed.  Let  Thornwell  answer:  "The  sole 
promise  involved  in  a  threatening  is  impunity  as  long  as  the  threatening 
is  respected."  Conscience  gives  us  nothing  except  a  judgment  of  what 
is  right  and  what  is  wrong,  with  the  corresponding  sense  of  obligation 
to   do   the   right   and    refrain    from   doing   the   wrong. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  the  next  point:  "During  his  rectitude 
Adam  evidently  enjoyed  the  use  of  the  'tree  of  life'  which  was  a  sacra- 
mental pledge  to  him  of  the  promised  result.  And  when  the  covenant 
was  broken  his  partaking  of  this  seal  was  forbidden,  as  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  the  new  state  of  things.  Unless  Adam  had  had  before  him 
the  promise  of  life  for  obedience  this  would  have  been  idle." 

But  no  one  denies  that  he  had  a  promise  of  life  as  long,  as  he  obeyed, 
and  to  make  the  tree  of  life  stand  for  more  than  this,  a  symbol  of 
life  during  obedience,  is  pure  presumption;  indeed  it  is  a  presumption 
based  upon  the  prior  presumption  that  a  promise  of  eternal  life  was 
made,  for  otherwise  how  could  it  be  the  seal  of  such  a  promise?  Thus 
it  is  seen  that  the  argument  is  a  circle,  and  begs  the  c^uestion  by  assuming 
the  thing  to  be  proved.  To  designate  the  symbol  of  the  tree  of  life 
as  a  sacrament  is  simply  an  embodiment  of  this  argument  for  it  is 
nowhere  called  a  sacrament.     God  drove  man  out  of  the  garden  lest  he 


24  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

deceive  himself  with  reference  to  that  symhol,  as  the  devil  had  already 
deceived  him  with  reference  to  the  symbol  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil ;  but  it  was  not  because  there  was  any  natural  efficacy 
in  the  tree  itself,  but  to  prevent  Adam  from  resting  upon  false  hopes. 
It  is  impossible  to  evolve  truth  out  of  the  devil's  lie.  If  it  had  really 
been  a  sacrament  representing  a  provided  salvation  for  the  sinner, 
there  seems  no  reason  why  he  might  not  still  have  had  access  to  it. 
But  the  incongruity  of  making  it  such  a  sign  is  manifest.  How  could 
it  represent  a  salvation  from  death  before  death  entered  into  the 
world?  To  call  the  tree  of  life  a  sacrament  is  an  abuse  of  language 
which  springs  out  of  the  broad  sense  in  which  the  old  fathers  used  the 
word. 

The  next  point  is  the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ,  which  there 
is  no  need  to  dwell  upon,  because  we  have  already  seen  that  the  supposed 
parallel  is  a  misconception.  It  supposes  that  Christ  simply  undertook 
what  Adam  failed  to  accomplish,  but  this  is  disproved  by  the  contrast 
drawn  between  the  two  in  the  tifth  chapter  of  Romans.  To  argue  that 
Adam  must  have  stood  for  eternal  life  for  himself  and  his  descendants, 
for  the  reason  that  Christ  has  brought  eternal  life  is  as  baseless  as 
the   fabric  of  a  dream. 

Thornwell,  who  so  freely  acknowledged  the  invalidity  of  the  argument 
from  contraries  at  another  point,  thinks  the  argument  from  the  repre- 
sentative character  of  Adam  is  solid.  He  says,  "It  is  morally  certain 
that  a  peculiar  promise  of  some  sort  must  have  been  given,  depending 
upon  a  limited  obedience,  from  the  circumstance  that  Adam  was  made 
a  representative  of  the  race.  He  could  not  have  been  treated  as  a 
public  person,  and  yet  placed  under  a  law  of  perpetual  obedience."  Let 
us  pause  just  here  and  ask.  How  do  we  know?  In  what  respect  was 
he  a  public  person?  We  are  told  that  "through  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin ;"  that  "through  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners,"  but  we  are  nowhere  told  that  by 
obedience  Adam  would  have  rendered  his  seed  indefectible.  But  Dr. 
Thornwell  takes  it  for  granted  that  this  would  have  been  the  result. 
He  says  that  to  suppose  him  placed  under  a  law  of  perpetual  obedience 
(which,  by  the  way,  the  Larger  Catechism  tells  us  to  have  been  the  fact)' 
"were  to  suppose  the  monstrous  anomaly  that  his  descendants  might 
have  successively  come  into  being,  and  yet  without  being  justified  have 
been  exempt  from  the  possibility  of  sin ;  or  in  case  of  sin  have  been 
exempt  from  the  petialty  of  transgression."  1'his  is  certainly  interest- 
ing, but  the  predicamenr  which  is  here  represented  makes  one  think 
that  the  theologians  when  they  come  to  deal  with  this  question  have 
short  memories.  He  starts  out  to  explain  what  would  be  the  condition 
under  a  state  of  natural  law,  and  comes  back  on  the  same  old  track, 
.•upposing  that  Adam's  descendants  must  have  been  promised  indefecti- 
bility  upon  Adam's  limited  obedience.  A  condition  of  natural  law 
is  converted  mto  o  covenant  of  works.  Verily  there  is  something  fatal 
about    this    question,    it    is    enchanted    ground,     and    to    wander    about 


CONFESSIO.W^L  REVISION.  25 

in  it  has  the  same  ei'fect  as  drinking  of  the  waters  of  Lethe.  The 
suggested  monstrous  condition  is  purely  imaginary.  If  Adam  had  been 
placed  in  a  condition  of  natural  law  which  required  perpetual  obedience 
and  he  had  had  a  child  born  in  his  estate  of  innocence,  would  he  not 
have  been  in  precisely  Adam's  condition?  The  supposition  of  indefect- 
ilility  without  justification  results   from  contradictory   suppositions. 

The  discussion  of  this  question  presents  the  most  striking  illustration 
of  the  power  of  prejudice.  The  persistence  of  the  idea  of  the  covenant 
of  works  is  something  marvelous.  Adam  it  is  argued  "could  not  have 
beevi  treated  as  a  public  person,  and  yet  placed  under  a  law  of  perpetual 
obedience."  The  answer  is.  No,  not  if  it  be  assumed  beforehand  that 
the  public  character  of  Adam  was  that  of  a  representative  or  covenant 
lieaci  under  the  covenant  of  works  as  ordinarily  conceived.  The  rejected 
supposition  is  just  what  the  Larger  Catechism  asserts  in  two  places 
ID  have  been  the   fact. 

Again,  it  is  said,  "if  there  were  no  limit  to  his  probation,  he  never 
could  be  justified."  But  where  is  it  said  that  God  expected  him  to  be 
justified  liy  his  own  righteousness?  This  is  the  very  point  at  issue, 
and  imagination  cannot  be  relied  upon  to  make  a  solid  argument. 

THE  MOSAIC  COVENANT. 

We  come  now  to  that  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  system  which  is 
supposed  to  give  support  to  the  theory  of  a  covenant  of  works.  We 
have  already  seen  it  alluded  to  in  the  discussions  of  Chas.  Hodge  and 
A.  A.  Hodge,  but  it  is  also  found  in  Dabney,  and  is  especially  depended 
upon  by  Thornwell,  who  puts  the  matter  thus :  "I  maintain  that  the 
Scriptures  indirectly  teach  us  that  there  must  have  been  a  promise, 
and  positively  declare  what  the  promise  was."  This  appears  almost 
self-contradictory,  for  if  the  Scriptures  positively  declare  what  the 
promise  was,  why  say  that  they  indirectly  teach  that  there  must  have 
been  a  promise?  The  quotations  show  what  is  meant:  "the  law — that 
is  the  law  given  upon  Sinai — "was  ordained  unto  life."  "If  thou  wilt 
enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments."  "Who  will  render  to  every 
man  according  to  his  deeds,  to  them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well 
doing   seek   for   glory   honor   and   immortality,    eternal   life." 

Now  in  the  first  place  it  would  not  be  conclusive  to  apply  the  pas^ 
sages  which  have  a  clear  reference  to  the  law  of  Moses  to  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  even  in  its  aspect  of  a  regime  of  natural  law,  unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  such  a  dispensation  of  law, 
which  must  suppose  it  to  be  a  scheme  of  redemption  by  law.  But  this 
is  not  merely  a  gross  misinterpretation  of  the  Scripture,  it  is  con- 
tradictory of  its  positive  assertions.  The  supposition  that  the  Mosaic 
law  is  the  old  covenant  of  works,  or  dispensation  of  law,  renewed,  is  a 
supposition  of  extreme  violence,  for  it  supposes  that  God  proposed  the 
same  plan  to  fallen  man  which  he  had  (supposedly)  proposed  to  man 
unfallen.     It  is  a  gross  misinterpretation  of  the  covenant  with  Israel. 


26  INFANT  SAU'ATION  AND 

In  examining  Dr.  Thornwell's  proof  texts,  let  us  take  first  Rom.  2:  6, 
7,  a  passage  upon  which  he  lays  great  stress.  He  says,  "This  passage  is 
decisive,  as  its  design  is  evidently  to  show  the  nature  of  the  dispensation 
under  which  man  was  placed  in  innocency,  as  preparatory  to  a  just 
apprehension  of  the  gospel.  The  promise  of  eternal  life  is  no  part  of 
the  law  as  such.  It  is  peculiar  to  it  by  virtue  of  the  limited  probation 
upon  which  man  was  placed.  The  law  of  creation  was  life  during  the 
period  of  obedience,  and  eternal  life  could  only  be  the  reward  of  eternal 
obedience,  but  the  law  as  modified  by  grace  was  patient  continuance 
in  well-doing  for  a  season,  and  this  for  everlasting  security  and  bliss. 
This  was  the  law  under  which  all  men  were  placed  in  Adam ;  this  the 
promise  explicitly  announced  to  them  as  the  incentive  to  fidelity."  Dr. 
Thornwell  seems  to  think  that  the  application  of  this  passage  to  the 
case  in  hand  is  so  plain  that  it  needs  no  exposition.  But  an  examination 
of  the  passage  in  the  light  of  its  context  serves  to  show  that  it  is  a 
total  misconception  of  it  to  make  it  have  any  reference  to  a  dispensa- 
tion of  law,  much  less  to  man's  condition  in  his  estate  of  innocence. 
The  passage  speaks  of  something  which  will  take  place  "in  the  day 
of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,"  in  other 
words,  in  the  day  of  judgment.  The  passage  cited  announces  a  principle 
of  judgment,  which  was  to  be  "rendered  to  every  man  according  to  his 
works."  This  does  not  mean  that  works  were  to  be  the  ground  of  justi- 
fication, for  the  judgment  is  "according  to  my  gospel."  It  is  true  men 
are  to  be  judged  in  accordance  with  their  characters,  for  God's  saved 
people  will  by  "patience  in  well  doing  seek  for  glory,  honor  and 
incorruption" ;  but  not  as  the  means  of  attaining  salvation,  but 
pursuing  salvation  itself  in  its  subjective  aspect;  while  the  wicked 
will  infallibly  manifest  a  factious  or  rebellious  spirit,  as  mani- 
fested by  their  disobedience,  and  their  preference  for  unrighteousness. 
Since  evangelical  obedience  cannot  be  the  ground  of  salvation,  there 
is  no  probation  in  the  passage,  in  the  sense  supposed.  Nor  is  this  pro- 
bation, of  whatever  nature,  a  limited  probation,  making  it  parallel  with 
a  limited  probation  of  Adam,  nor  does  it  furnish  any  basis  for  the  sup- 
position of  such  an  arrangement.  This  probation  ends  only  with  death 
or  the  judgment.  Adam's  probation  is  supposed  to  be  necessarily  short, 
for  if  continued  beyond  the  birth  of  his  first  child,  according  to  Thorn- 
well,  the  monstrous  condition  of  unjustified  indefectibility  must  have 
been  the  result.  Thornwell  then  misinterprets  the  passage  when  he 
says  it  describes  "the  law  under  which  all  men  were  placed  in  Adam." 
Hodge  in  his  commentary  appears  to  make  the  same  mistake  when  he 
makes  the  passage  teach  that  "the  ground  of  the  judgment  of  God 
is  the  works  of  men,  not  their  relations  or  professions."  God  will  ren- 
der to  every  one,  Jew  as  w^ell  as  Gentile,  according  to  his  works  in 
opposition  to  any  other  ground  of  judgment."  Just  below  he  tells  us 
that  the  righteous  seek  glory  honor  and  immortality  "by  well  doing,  by 
the  persevering  performance  of  all  duty."  Under  verse  10:  "This  is  the 
ground  of  decision  with  respect  to  all.  because  God  is  perfectly  impartial." 


COXPESSiOXAL  REIISIOX.  27 

V.   12:   '"The  ground  of  judgment  is  their  works,  the  standard  of  judg- 
ment is  their  knowledge." 

It  would  seem  that  the  word  "ground"  must  be  intended  to  express 
something  different  from  what  Dr.  Thornwell  probably  takes  the  pas- 
sage to  mean,  after  all,  for  he  says  under  verse  13:  when  Paul  says 
the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified,  he  is  of  course  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  teaching  contrary  to  his  repeated  declarations  and  arguments 
that  men  are  actually  to  be  justified  by  obedience  to  the  law.  He  is 
speaking  not  of  the  method  of  justification  available  for  sinners,  but  of 
the  principles  on  which  all  who  are  out  of  Christ  are  to  be  judged." 
This  last  statement  saves  Hodge's  orthodoxy,  but  it  hardly  justifies  his 
use  of  language.  The  phrases  "ground  of  decision"  and  "ground  of 
judgment"  (vs.  6,  12)  are  evidently  misleading,  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  Thornwell  perhaps  and  others  should  have  been  misled  by  them. 
The  last  sentence  quoted  (v.  13)  shows  that  Hodge  is  himself  not  clear 
on  the  matter.  Why  does  he  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  verse  has 
reference  to  those  who  are  out  of  Christ?  Did  he  not  tell  us  under 
v.  10  that  this  same  "ground  of  decision"  had  respect  to  all;  and  if  this 
phrase  does  not  mean  cause  for  justification  or  condemnation  what  does 
it  mean?  It  would  not  be  easy  to  establish  a  distinction  between  the 
phrases  "worketh  good"  and  "doers  of  the  law"  (vs.  10,  13)  and  yet 
Hodge  makes  one  apply  to  all,  and  the  other  to  a  particular  class  of 
men.  If  these  phrases  announce  a  principle  of  judgment,  must  it  not 
be  a  principle  which  applies  equally  to  all,  seeing  that  the  apostle  applies 
it  both   to   the   righteous   and  the   wicked  ? 

The  trouble  seems  to  be  in  the  interpretation  of  the  phrase  "according 
to  his  works"  (v.  6),  which  is  the  key  to  the  whole  passage.  This  does 
not  mean  that  works  are  the  ground  of  judgment,  but  that  judgment 
is  to  be  in  both  cases  in  accordance  with  men's  characters  as  evinced 
by  their  works.  This  is  very  ditterent  from  saying  that  the  righteous 
are  justified  by  law.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  "the  doers  of  law" 
(not  the  law,  as  in  the  A.  V.)  are  justified  by  law,  but  it  simply  shows 
that  law  cannot  condemn  as  long  as  obedience  is  rendered.  See  James 
2 :  21,  24,  25.  But  this  conception  is  purely  abstract  on  the  part  of 
the  apostle  and  lends  no  excuse  for  constructing  a  scheme  of  salvation  by 
law.  Law  promises  nothing  but  immunity  for  obedience;  after  we  ha\e 
done  all  we  are  unprofitable  servants  (Luke  17)  ;  we  have  simply  done 
what  it  was  our  duty  to  do.  Jesus  does  not  mean  to  say,  any  more 
than  the  apostle,  that  any  mere  man  ever  did  do  his  whole  duty,  but 
simply  to  explain  the  condition  of  a  person  under  a  dispensation  of 
pure  law ;  and  the  purpose  of  both  is  the  same,  viz. :  to  show  that  it 
is  impossible  for  man  to  save  himself  by  law.  This  is  not  God's  plan  at 
all.  Under  a  sense  of  the  extreme  difficulty  of  human  nature  to  measure 
up  to  the  requirement  of  forgiveness  which  Jesus  had  laid  down,  the 
disciples  cry.  Lord  increase  our  faith ;  and  the  Saviour  in  this  connection 
■teaches  them  that  we  are  not  saved  by  law.  Who  then  can  show  that 
the  scheme  of  salvation  by  law  was  ever  proposed,  even  to  Adam  in  his 


28  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

estate  of  innocence  ?  The  other  passages  which  are  quoted  in  support 
of  the  theory  of  salvation  by  law  are  equally  beside  the  mark,  and  as 
interpreted  they  make  botli  Paul  and  the  Saviour  contradict  them- 
selves. 

Thornwell's  next  quotation  is  from  Rom.  7:  10;  8:  3.  "And  the  com- 
mand which  was  ordained  unto  life,  this  I  found  to  be  unto  death." 
"For  what  the  law  could  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh." 
etc.  "This  passage  teaches  unequivocally"  he  says,  "that  the  law  proposed 
a  scheme  of  justification;  a  scheme  by  virtue  of  which  men  could  be 
reputed  not  merely  innocent,  but  righteous ;  and  that  the  reason  why 
eternal  life  has  not  been  secured  by  it  is  not  the  inadequacy  of  its  own 
promise,  but  the  failure  of  man  to  comply  with  the  condition.  No  candid 
man,"  he  says,  "can  weigh  these  texts  without  being  impressed  with  the 
conviction  that  Paul  thinks  of  man  as  having  been  placed  in  a  state 
in  which  he  might  have  secured  everlasting  life  by  a  temporary 
obedience." 

It  is  a  matter  of  satisfaction  that  this  advocate  of  the  covenant  of 
works  gives  in  such  unequivocal  language  his  interpretation  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  upon  which  he  seeks  to  establish  the  covenant  of  works. 
Its  purpose  is  manifest,  and  it  forces  the  reflection,  how  completely  can 
a  man  be  blinded  by  a  theory,  and  how  easy  it  is  to  warp  Scripture 
when  going  in  search  of  passages  to  support  a  pet  theory;  and  others 
are  in  the  same  boat.  It  is  refreshing  to  see  that  Thornwell  sees  the 
issue  so  clearly,  and  undertakes  to  meet  it  so  fairly.  His  idea  is 
that  if  the  Mosaic  law  placed  man  in  a  state  in  which  he  might  have 
secured  everlasting  life  by  a  temporary  obedience,  then  the  promise  of 
eternal  life  to  a  temporary  obedience  in  Eden  is  established. 

Before  discussing  the  question  as  to  what  we  are  to  get  out  of  his 
quotations,  let  us  inspect  the  logic  by  which  Thornwell  brings  to  bear 
his  own  interpretations.  It  is  simply  this,  If  God  gave  a  law,  or 
made  a  covenant  on  Sinai  which  offered  eternal  life  upon  condition  of 
a  limited  obedience,  he  must  have  offered  to  Adam  eternal  life  upon 
a  limited  obedience.  Does  this  appear  to  be  conclusive?  The  law  of 
Moses  was  given  in  connection  with  a  covenant  which  is  perfectly 
definite,  and  can  be  easilj'^  studied.  It  was  a  special  arrangement  with 
Israel  as  God's  national  church,  and  absolute  obedience  to  the  moral 
law  was  not  expected,  but  a  scheme  of  forgiveness  was  provided.  The 
reasoning  fails  to  take  into  account  the  different  conditions  of  the 
parties.  We  need  not  ask.  Why  should  God  have  proposed  a  scheme  to 
Israel  which  failed  in  Adam,  we  are  not  ready  for  that  yet,  but  let 
us  ask.  Why  seek  support  for  a  scheme  in  Eden  which  if  made  at 
all  to  Israel  certainly  failed  absolutely?  Will  any  one  say,  But  Adam 
was  holy,  and  able  to  render  obedience?  The  answer  is,  But  Adam 
was  a  creature  of  finite  powers,  and  stood  very  little  better  showing  than 
sinful  Israel,  and  God  must  have  known  beforehand  that  Adam  would 
fail,  without  taking  into  consideration  the  question  of  a  limit  placed  to 
his    probation.      Does    it    comport    very    well    with    our    ideas    of   infinite 


COXl'ESSIONAL  REVISIOX.  29 

wisdom  that  God  seriously  proposed  a  scheme  of  salvation  to  Adam 
which  lie  knew  was  doomed  to  certain  failure?  What  is  gained  by  such 
a  supposition?  Was  Adam  and  the  race  in  any  better  condition  actually, 
than  they  would  have  been  in  an  estate  of  natural  law?  It  would  seem 
not,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  no  single  soul  reaped  any  benefit  from 
such  scheme,  if  it  was  proposed. 

But  it  injures  our  idea  of  God's  wisdom  to  hold  that  he  proposed  a 
scheme  which  was  foredoomed  to  absolute  failure.  It  injures  our  idea 
of  the  glorious  plan  of  redemption  to  hold  that  it  is  simply  the  patching 
up  of  a  plan  that  failed  in  Adam.  It  does  not  add  to  the  dignity  and 
glory  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  to  hold  that  he  simply  undertook  what 
was  proposed  to  a  mere  man.  Why  then  this  covenant  of  works  offering 
eternal  life  upon  a  limited  obedience?  If  so  important  a  covenant  was 
made  as  the  original  scheme  of  God's  salvation  for  man.  there  ought  to 
be  some  record  of  it,  and  we  should  not  be  left  to  argue  from  a  dispen- 
sation of  God's  providence  after  the  fall  to  a  dispensation  of  his 
providence  before  the    fall. 

The  limit  to  the  probation  is  so  im.portant  an  element  that  there  should 
be  a  record  of  it,  but  there  is  absolutely  none.  It  cannot  even  be 
shown  to  have  existed  in  the  Mosaic  covenant,  so  there  is  not  the 
slightest  starting  point  for  the  flimsy  logic  by  whicii  it  is  projected 
into  the  dawn  of  creation.  This  is  a  most  important  point,  by  the  way, 
against  that  theory  of  Christ's  work  of  atonement  which  teaches  that 
he  purchased  eternal  life  for  his  people  by  a  limited  obedience  to  law. 
Paul  had  the  idea  of  salvation  by  law  before  his  conversion.  But  it 
passed  away  with  the  superior  knowledge  of  the  divine  illumination  by 
which  he  passed  from  Judaism  into  the  gospel  light.  When  says, 
"I  was  alive  apart  from  the  law  once,"  he  does  not  mean  that  he  was 
better  before  his  enlightened  knowledge  than  he  was  after.  He  evidently 
means  that  he  was  righteous  in  his  own  apprehension,  and  must  have 
thought  that  he  was  earning  salvation  by  his  obedience,  but  when  the 
commandment  came  home  to  him  in  its  spiritual  meaning  "sin  revived" 
in  the  sense  that  it  became  at  once  apparent.  He  then  discovered  that 
all  his  righteousness  was  filthy  rags,  and  his  former  hope  of  saving 
himself  by  law  a  delusion;  the  law  could  bring  him  nothing  but  death. 

This  is  a  different  idea  truly  from  the  above  conception.  That  idea 
of  the  law  was  Paul's  conception  before  his  mind  was  enlightened,  and 
it  was  the  teaching  of  a  spurious  Judaism,  which  having  rejected  the 
Saviour  to  whom  all  their  own  forms  and  ceremonies  pointed,  fastened 
upon   the   husks   of   the   moral   law   as   a   scheme   of   righteousness. 

No  more  serious  indictment  can  be  brought  against  it  than  to  say 
that  it  brings  about  a  false  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  economy— 
unless  it  be  the  separate  imputation  of  Christ's  active  obedience  which 
casts  a  blight  upon  the  atonement  itself  by  introducing  a  confusing  and 
contradictory  element  to  account  for  man's  "award"  of  eternal  life. 

There  are  other  passages  which  need  to  l)e  noticed  in  this  connection, 


30  IX  FA  NT  SAL]- AT  ION  AND 

viz.  L'!irist's  answer  to  the  lawyer,  "This  do  and  thou  shalt  live"  ( Lk.  lo. 
25),  and  the  other  to  the  young  man,  who  came  inquiring  the  way  of 
life,  to  whom  the  Saviour  answered,  "If  thou  wouldst  enter  into  life  keep 
the   commandments."     Matt.   19,   16,   Mk.    10,    17,   Lk.   18,    iS. 

In  the  first  of  these  passages  Christ  draws  out  from  the  man  himself 
the  summary  of  the  law,  and  after  commending  his  answer  tells  him, 
This  do  and  thou  shalt  live ;  and  immediately  proceeds  to  give  the  par- 
able of  the  good  Samaritan  to  answer  his  question,  And  who  is  my  neigh- 
bor? The  point  for  us  is.  What  did  Christ  mean  by  saying.  This  do 
and  thou  shalt  live?  If  he  meant  keep  the  law  perfectly  and  you  will 
merit  eternal  life,  his  illustration  of  the  meaning  of  the  law  was 
such  as  to  show  the  impossibility  of  completely  fullilling  the  condition. 
He  must  have  meant  simply  to  direct  his  inquirer  to  the  true  answer  to 
his  own  question.  What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life?  Eternal  life 
must  be  taken  in  its  subjecti\'e  meaning,  of  the  practical  christian  life, 
and  then  the  parable  would  be  illustrative  of  that  life  as  it  expresses 
itself  in  the  law  of  !o\e. 

Whether  this  be  the  meaning  or  not,  this  seems  to  be  his  meaning 
in  Matt  ig.  17,  despite  the  fact  that  the  question  is,  "What  good  thing 
shall  I  do  that  I  may  have  eternal  life?"  The  Saviour's  first  answer 
seems  to  intimate  that  the  young  man  doesn't  ask  his  question  in 
exactly  the  right  way.  Whether  he  says.  Why  asketh  thou  me  con- 
cerning that  which  is  good,  or  Why  callest  thou  me  good,  or  put  in  both 
forms,  it  matters  not,  the  purpose  is  the  same,  and  most  likely  the 
answers  were  given  together,  Matthew  giving  one  form  and  Mark 
and  Luke  the  other.  "Why  callest  thou  me  good;  and  why  askest  thou 
me  concerning  goodness?  Implying  that  the  question  is  not  an  intelli- 
gent one  in  the  form  put,  because  none  but  God  is  really  good,  i.  e., 
perfectly  righteous.  But  he  proceeds  to  answer  a  question  put  by  an 
honest  and  yearning  heart  by  giving  directions  concerning  the  practi- 
cal christian  life,  at  the  same  time  putting  his  finger  upon  the  weak 
point  in  this  young  man's  character ;  and  despite  the  weakness  the 
Saviour  recognizing  his  sincerity  looked  upon  him  and  loved  him.  It 
would  be  a  monstrous  perversion  of  the  Saviour's  first  answer  to  take 
it  as  directing  him  to  keep  the  commandments  as  a  method  of  salvation. 
Such  an  interpretation  does  not  comport  with  the  latter  part  of  the 
incident  in  which  he  gave  this  young  man  a  lesson  similar  to  that 
conveyed  by  the  parable  of  the  good   Samaritan. 

All  such  false  interpretations  should  be  decidedly  rejected,  and  the 
whole  Scripture  brought  into  harmony  with  itself  by  recognizing  that 
the  method  of  salvation  was  the  same  in  the  Old  Testament  as  in  the 
New,  viz.  "The  righteous  shall  live  by  his  faith."  To  make  the  Mosaic 
code  a  scheme  of  pure  law  is  a  gross  misinterpretation.  The  moral 
law  did  not  constitute  the  whole  of  that  code  by  any  means ;  the 
covenant  on  Sinai  embraced  the  "Judgments"  as  well,  in  other  words,  the 
whole  of  the    Symbolic  Jewish    ritual,    which   presented   Christ's   salvation 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  31 

in  type.  The  moral  law  never  could  do  anything  but  condemn  sinful 
creatures  in  its  judgments,  and  was  never  given  for  justification.  See 
Gal.  3,  21,  22. 

Seeing  that  this  sweeps  away  the  last  vestige  of  the  foundation  con- 
structed for  the  covenant  of  works,  considered  as  a  promise  of  eternal 
life  upon  a  limited  obedience,  it  should  be  buried  beyond  the  possibility 
of  a  resurrection.  Let  the  gospel  narrative  be  taken  just  as  it  is  with- 
out imaginary  addition.  It  is  a  matter  for  congratulation  that  the 
Larger  Catechism  has  seized  and  chystalized  the  truth  on  this  subject; 
but  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  avoided  altogether  the  word 
"covenant"  as  descriptive  of  a  regime  of  pure  law.  The  statements  of 
the  Confession  and  Shorter  Catechism  should  by  all  means  be  so 
modified  as  to  bring  them  into  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  the  Larger 
Catechism  on  this  subject. 

The  discussion  of  the  subject  of  the  "covenant  of  works"  brings  us 
l)y  a  natural  transition  to  the  discussion  of  Original  Sin,  and  that 
view  of  it  which  is  expressed  in  the  doctrine  of  Immediate  Imputation. 

ORIGINAL  SIN. 

The  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  has  suffered  from  the  deadly  blight  pro- 
duced by  the  theory  of  a  covenant  of  works,  the  effects  of  which  are 
not  peculiar  either  to  Calvinism  or  to  Arminianism.  The  doctrine  of 
Immediate  Imputation  which  is  a  necessary  corollary  of  that  theory  has 
had  its  effect  upon  both  types  of  theology.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  hear 
Calvinists  charge  Wesleyans,  under  the  general  name  Arminians  with 
being  unsound  on  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  The  charge  is  not 
just  of  the  followers  of  Wesley  and  Watson.  They  accept  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  but  they  differ  in  the  device  which  they  intro- 
duce for  neutralizing  or  remedying  the  effects  of  the  doctrine  of  Imme- 
diate Imputation.  They  admit  just  as  clearly  as  the  Calvinist  that  the 
descendants  of  Adam  and  Eve,  after  their  fall,  were  born  without  original 
righteousness,  and  were  not  merely  corrupt  but  guilty.  Now  it  is 
obviously  unfair  to  hold  Methodists  responsible  for  the  views  of  Whitby 
and  the  lower  Arminians,  which  they  repudiate,  by  simply  putting  them  in 
the  broad  class  of  Arminians.  There  is  no  more  justice  in  this  than 
it  would  be  for  a  Methodist  to  charge  upon  all  Calvinists  indiscrimi- 
nately, the  doctrine  of  Immediate  Imputation,  which  teaches  that  all 
Adam's  descendants  were  held  individually  guilty  of  Adam's  act  in 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  All  Calvinists  do  not  teach  this  by  any 
means.  Dabney  denies  that  it  was  the  view  of  Calvin  himself  or  of 
the  body  of  the  Reformed  divines. 

Dabney  very  properly  makes  a  clear  distinction  between  the  followers 
of  Whitby  and  Wesley.  The  former  seem  to  have  held  a  semi-Pela- 
gianism  which  the  latter  have  always  rejected.  Watson  himself  pro- 
tests against  being  classed  with  Whitby.  Before  giving  his  language 
it  may  be  well  to  inquire  what   Whitby  believed.     Dabney  gives   a  brief 


32  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

statement  thus :  Whitby  and  his  followers  "admit  that  Adam  and  his 
race  were  both  much  injured  by  the  fall.  He  has  not  indeed  lost  his 
equilibrium  of  will  for  spiritual  good,  but  he  has  become  greatly  alien- 
ated from  God,  has  fallen  under  the  penal  curse  of  physical  death,  has 
become  more  animal,  so  that  concupiscence  is  greatly  exasperated, 
and  is  more  prone  to  break  out  into  actual  transgression."  Theol.  p.  316. 
If  this  statement  is  correct,  even  Arminians  of  this  type  believe  in 
original  sin,  since  the  state  of  fallen  man  was  a  sinful  one,  not  one 
of  moral  indifference.  It  should  be  noticed  that  lie  has  according  to 
this  "fallen  under  the  penal  curse  of  physical  evil  and  death."  The 
words  "physical  evil  and  death"  may  appear  to  have  a  Pelagian  ring, 
but  if  it  were  not  a  state  of  sin,  how  could  they  fall  under  a  penal 
curse ;  and  yet  the  last  sentence  of  the  above  statement  appears  to  exclude 
that  covenant:  "This  is  the  state  to  which  Adam  reduced  himself; 
and  his  posterity  share  it,  not  in  virtue  of  any  federal  relation,  or 
imputation  of  Adam's  guilt,  but  of  that  universal  physical  law  tliat  like 
must  generate  like."  Whether  the  implied  contradiction  of  this  state- 
ment is  Whitby's  own,  or  is  to  be  attributed  to  inadvertence  in  the 
statement  of  his  views,  cannot  here  be  decided,  but  this  much  seems 
clear,  if  he  rejected  the  covenant  of  works,  he  was  right  in  so  doing,  and 
his  error  consists  not  in  that  rejection  but  in  his  tendency  to  Pelagianism, 
that  is.  his  tendency  to  modify  or  deny  the  real  sinfulness  of  man's  estate 
by  reason  of  the  fall. 

"The  Wesleyans,"  says  Dabney,  "begin  by  admitting  all  that  a  moderate 
Calvinist  would  ask.  as  to  Adam's  loss  of  original  righteousness  in  the 
fall,  bondage  under  evil  desires,  and  total  depravity.  While  they  mis- 
interpret and  then  reject  the  question  between  mediate  and  immediate 
imputation."  In  passing  it  may  be  observed  that  inasmuch  as  Dabney 
himself,  in  his  review  of  Hodge's  Theology,  interprets  and  then  rejects 
the  distinction  between  mediate  and  immediate  imputation,  it  is  not 
easy  to  understand  what  this  means.  However,  he  tells  us  that  they 
"retain  the  orthodox  idea  of  imputation,  admitting  that  the  legal  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  act  are  visited  upon  his  descendants  along  with 
himself."  The  distinction  which  he  draws  between  them  and  Whitby  does 
not  seem  clear  on  this  point,  inasmuch  as  the  "penal  curse  of  physical 
evil  and  death"  (Whitby)  is  certanly  one  of  the  "legal  consequences 
supposed  to  have  followed  from  Adam's  act"  (Wesleyan).  The  point 
is  that  in  neither  case  is  there  a  denial  of  the  sinfulness  and  guilt  of 
man's  situation. 

The  next  point  is  entirely  a  different  question  :  "But  then,"  he  say,s, 
"they  say  the  objections  of  severity  and  unrighteousness  urged  against 
this  plan  could  not  be  met,  unless  it  be  considered  as  a  whole  embracing 
man's  gracious  connection  with  the  second  Adam.  By  the  covenant  of 
grace  in  him,  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will,  and  ability  of  will 
are  purchased  back  for  every  member  of  the  human  family  and  actually 
communicated  by  common  sufficient  grace  to  all,  so  far  repairing  the 
effects   of   the   fall   that   man   has   moral   alnlity   for   spiritual   good,   if   he 


CONFESSIONAL  REJ'ISION.  33 

chooses  to  employ  it."  Dabney's  comment  is,  "Thus  while  they  give 
us  the  true  doctrine  with  one  hand,  they  take  it  back  with  the  other, 
and  teach  a  semi-Pelagian  result."  This  comment  seems  to  be  not  just, 
for  it  confounds  the  question  of  a  remedy  for  man's  inherited  sinful 
condition  with  the  condition  itself.  Surely  the  disease  and  the  remedy 
are  different  things.  But  before  discussing  the  Wesleyan  view  let  us 
hear  Watson  himself.  In  repelling  certain  misrepresentations  of  the 
Wesleyan  position  Watson  says,  "That  this  is  a  very  defective  view  of 
the  effects  of  the  original  offense  upon  Adam  and  his  descendants  must 
be  acknowledged,  .  .  .  that  the  corruption  of  our  nature,  and  not  merely 
its  greater  liability  to  be  corrupted,  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  will 
presently  be  shown."  (45)  He  defends  Arminius  himself  from,  the 
semi-Pelagian  views  attributed  to  him,  quoting  him  directly  to  show  that 
these  were  not  his  views,  and  says,  "such  views  are  not  the  opinion  of  the 
large  body  of  the  followers  of  Wesley,  but  are  traceable  to  Dr.  Whitby, 
and  several  divines  of  the  English  Church."  But  the  fact  that  Wesleyan 
Methodists  have  so  often  been  held  responsible  for  views  which  they 
do  not  teach  shows,  he  says,  "how  little  pains  many  divines  of  the 
Calvinistic  school  have  taken  to  understand  the  opinions  which  they 
have   hastily   condemned  in  mass." 

He  quotes  Arminius  thus:  "The  immediate  and  proper  effect  of  this 
sin  was,  God  was  offended  by  it  .  .  .  from  which  he  conceives  a  just 
wrath,  which  is  the  second  effect  of  sin.  But  this  wrath  is  followed 
by  the  infliction  of  punishment,  which  is  here  twofold:  i.  A  liability 
to  both  deaths.  (Rom.  6,  23).  2.  Deprivation  of  that  primeval  holiness 
and  righteousness  which  because  they  were  the  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwelling  in  man,  ought  not  to  remain  in  man  who  had  fallen  from 
the  favor  of  God,  and  had  incurred  his  anger.  But  the  whole  of  this 
sin  is  not  peculiar  to  our  first  parents,  but  is  common  to  the  whole 
race,  and  to  all  their  posterity  who  at  the  time  when  the  first  sin  was 
committed  were  in  the  loins,  and  who  afterwards  descended  from  them 
in  the  natural  mode  of  propagation.  .  .  .  Whatever  punishment  there- 
fore was  inflicted  on  our  first  parents  has  also  pervaded  all  their 
posterity." 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  account  of  the  transmission  of  sin 
does  not  differ  from  that  of  the  Westminster  Confession  itself.  It 
may  be  questioned  however  whether  it  is  perfectly  accurate  to  say,  that 
"privation  of  primeval  holiness  and  righteousness"  was  an  element  of 
tlie  twofold  infliction  of  punishment."  How  could  it  be,  when  it  pre- 
cedes the  punishment,  or  constitutes  its  own  punishment?  God  did 
not  take  away  man's  holiness  or  righteousness,  he  threw  it  away  him- 
self. Nor  have  we  reason  to  believe  that  God  deprived  man  entirely 
of  his  Holy  Spirit  at  this  juncture,  which  seems  to  be  implied  in  the 
statement. 

But  after  all,  let  us  not  be  too  severe  on  Arminius,  especially  as  this 
is  a  doctrine  held  by  Calvinists,  and  is  just  the  opposite  from  the  semi- 
Pelagianism    which    might    have    been    expected.      It    is    true    that    the 


34  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

Confession  does  not  make  man's  loss  of  righteousness  an  element  of 
his  punishment  (Ch.  6,  Par.  2),  at  least  not  by  direct  statement,  but  this  is 
certainly  the  idea  of  the  immediate  imputation  theologians,  and  it  may 
be  considered  to  be  implied  in  Par.  3,  which  states  that  "the  guilt 
of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted 
nature  conveyed  to  all  his  posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary 
generation."  It  may  be  that  the  framers  of  this  statement  did  not 
intend  to  say  that  the  conveying  of  the  death  was  the  result  of  the 
imputation;  it  may  be  intended  simply  to  enumerate  two  separate  and 
distinct  effects ;  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  interpretation  wliich 
understands  a  causal  relation  between  the  two  clauses  is  not  an  un- 
natural one.  If  there  was  an  imputation  of  the  individual  act  of  Adam  to 
his  children,  it  seems  natural  to  place  this  reckoning  of  guilt  first,  at 
least  in  the  order  of  thought.  This  is  exactly  what  Hodge  contends 
for.  Dabney  criticises  Hodge's  Theology  for  teaching  Immediate  Impu- 
tation, with  this  very  order  of  thought,  on  the  ground  that  it  does  not 
comport  with  correct  ideas  of  justice  to  place  guilt  before  sin.  And 
yet  Dabney  objects  to  the  Wesleyan  views  when  they  contend  in  view  of 
this  immedate  imputation  that  "the  objections  of  severity  and  unright- 
eousness urged  against  this  plan  could  not  be  met  unless  it  be  con- 
sidered as  one  whole,  embracing  man's  gracious  connection  with  the 
second  Adam."  They  simply  apply  Christ's  work  of  atonement  to  all 
mankind,  in  such  a  way  as  to  relieve  the  burden  of  immediate  impu- 
tation, which  holds  men  personally  guilty  of  Adam's  act.  Dabney  says, 
"The  obvious  objection  to  this  scheme  is,  that  if  the  effects  of  Adam's 
fall  on  his  posterity  are  such  that  they  would  have  been  unjust  if  not 
repaired  by  a  redeeming  plan  which  was  to  follow  it  as  a  part  of  the 
same  system,  then  God's  act  in  giving  a  redeemer  was  not  one  of  pure 
grace  (as  Scripture  everywhere  says)  but  he  was  under  obligation  to 
do  some  such  thing."  This  objection  carries  little  force  when  it  is  seen 
that  it  can  be  turned  against  him;  for  the  injustice  which  Wesleyanism 
seeks  to  remedy  is  just  that  against  which  Dabney  himself  contends  in 
Hodge.  It  is  really  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  of 
works,  which  by  its  action  produces  this  anomaly,  and  yet  Dabney 
contends  for  the  covenant  of  works.  If  Wesley  or  Watson  had  per- 
ceived the  truth  and  rejected  the  covenant  of  works,  they  would  have 
had  no  need  to  introduce  the  device  to  which  Dabney  objects.  If 
Watson  after  accepting  the  common  theory  afterwards  tends  to  disre- 
gard it,  and  lays  stress  upon  the  transmission  of  sin  by  generation,  he 
is  by  so  much  ahead  of  the  Calvinist,  who  after  accepting  the  theory 
attempts  to  carry  it  out  to  all  its  logical  consequences. 

Watson  adheres  to  the  statement  of  Isaac  Watts,  as  being  the  least 
objectionable  form  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  but  it  is  a  mistake 
to  say  that  in  doing  so  he  teaches  simply  "that  the  result  of  Adam's 
sin  flowed  down  to  posterity  because  he  was  the  universal  father  of 
mankind."  Watson  accepted  the  doctrine  that  Adam  was  a  public  per- 
son  and   head    and    representative    of   the   human    race,"   and   cites   Rom. 


CONFESSIONAL  REJISION.  35 

3  to  show  that  "Adam  and  Christ  are  contrasted  in  their  public  or  federal 
character,  and  the  hurt  which  they  have  derived  from  the  one,  and  the 
healing  they  have  received  from  the  other  are  also  contrasted  in  various 
particulars." 

Now  he  does  not  explain  in  what  sense  he  uses  the  word  "federal," 
but  he  does  explain  that  it  means  more  than  mediate  imputation,  which 
he  defines  as  "our  mortality  of  body  and  the  corruption  of  our  moral 
nature,  in  virtue  of  our  derivation  from  him."  He  concludes  that  this 
does  not  go  far  enough  and  quotes  Dr.  Watts  as  giving  the  correct  view 
which  teaches  that  the  descendants  of  Adam  incurred  both  the  "guilt 
or  liableness  to  punishment,"  and  the  corruption  of  nature,  this  state- 
ment limiting  the  guilt  strictly  to  the  legal  aspect  of  the  matter,  and 
relieving  the  posterity  of  the  moral  ill  desert  of  the  act.  The  act  was 
theirs  only  in  its  consequences.  Nobody  but  a  realist  should  feel  dis- 
posed to  object  to  this.  It  really  covers  the  point  for  which  Dr.  Hodge 
contends,  but  it  is  wrong  in  so  doing,  and  it  is  a  pity  that  Watson  did 
not  out  and  out  reject  the  covenant  of  works,  and  so  consistently  limit 
the  representation  to  the  law  of  genetic  transmission,  or  what  has 
been  charged  upon  him  as  the  "parental  theory."  Dr.  Miley  is  quoted 
as  saying  that  "the  tendency  is  towards  the  recognition  of  this  law  as 
the  sufficient  and  whole  account  of  original  sin" — who  also  attributes 
this  view  to  Whedon.  This  tendency  is  unquestionably  correct,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  covenant  of  works,  as  commonly  understood,  is  a 
baseless  theory.  The  rejection  of  it  will  relieve  Wesleyan  Arminianism 
of  the  necessity  of  putting  out  the  theory  to  which  Dabney  objected, 
and  this  unscriptural  addendum  to  the  doctrine  of  universal  atonement 
should  be  eliminated.  When  this  is  done  one  of  the  most  serious  criti- 
cisms of  the  system  will  be  obviated.  H  then  the  Calvinistic  Theology 
on  its  part  clearly  rejects  the  unscriptural  theory  of  a  covenant  of 
works,   the  two   systems   will  be  on  this  point  in   perfect  harmony. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  protest  already,  in  Calvinistic  circles,  against 
the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation  which  is  simply  the  covenant  of 
works  under  another  name,  and  it  will  be  interesting  to  see  how  such  a 
theologian  as  Dabney  contends  against  the  one  while  at  the  same  time 
holding  to  the  other.  Even  a  partial  following  up  of  the  discussion 
among  Calvinistic  theologians  will  serve  to  show  that  utter  confusion 
has  been  wrought  in  theology  by  this  theory. 

IMPUTATION. 

Since  there  are  several  conflicting  views  on  the  subject  of  Imputation, 
we  may  naturally  inquire,  What  does  Imputation  mean?  It  is  hardly 
possible  to  give  a  consistent  and  intelligent  definition.  As  Dabney. 
explains,  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  equivalents  of  the  verb  "impute"  mean 
to  think,  then  to  judge,  then  to  impute  or  attribute.  This  however 
gives  a  very  imperfect  conception,  and  the  theologians  have  to  define 
it   by   giving   the    various    views    as    to    the    guilt    and    corruption    which 


2,6  IXFANT  SALVATION  AND 

Adam's  sin  I)rought  into  the  world.  There  are  different  views  of 
Imputation  according  as  the  guilt  or  the  corruption  of  nature  is  supposed 
to  precede  in  the  order  of  thought,  or  whether  they  be  made  to  coincide 
with  Adam's  original  act,  on  the  theory  that  all  the  race  were  really 
present  and  actually  had  a  part  in  the  act,  and  so  are  justly  held  respon- 
sible  for  that  sin. 

Now  it  is  well  to  note  the  fact  that  the  word  '"imputation"  does 
not  occur  in  our  English  Bibles.  The  word  "impute"  does  occur  sev- 
eral times,  but  in  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Testament  the 
Greek  word  is  rendered  by  "reckon"  in  every  case  except  one.  This  is 
an  improvement  in  translation,  for  it  is  well  to  avoid  a  word  which 
has  been  so  much  abused,  and  at  best  has  become  such  an  indefinite 
quantity.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  revisers  did  not  extend  their 
otherwise  uniform  translation  to  the  single  passage,  Rom.  5,  13,  which 
stands  as  an  exception ;  for  there  is  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
why  it  should  not  be  translated,  "but  sin  is  not  reckoned."  It  is  true 
there  is  a  slight  difference  in  the  form  of  the  Greek  word  but  "reckon" 
stands  as  its  first  equivalent  in  the  Lexicon.     (See  L.  and  S.) 

In  connection  with  the  fact  that  the  noun  "imputation"  is  nowhere 
used,  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  Dabney  acknowledges  that 
even  the  verb  is  not  used  to  assert  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  was 
imputed  to  us.  He  says,  "Now  we  do  not  say  that  the  Scriptures  any- 
where use  the  particular  phrase,  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  was  imputed 
to  us,  but  we  claim  that  the  truth  is  plainly  implied  in  the  transactions  as 
they  actually  occurred,  and  is  substantially  taught  in  other  parts  of 
Scripture."  Theol.  p.  329.  What  does  this  mean?  Why  of  course  that 
he  infers  it  from  the  covenant  of  works.  The  reader  who  has  followed 
the  discussion  of  the  covenant  of  works  will  know  how  much  value 
to  assign  to  such  proof.  In  another  place  he  asserts  that  the  covenant 
of  works  is  grounded  in  the  principle  of  imputation. 

The  question  "whether  anything  is  ever  said  in  Scripture  to  be 
imputed  to  any  other  than  its  own  agent"  he  does  not  discuss.  In  his 
view  of  imputation  "it  is  not  Adam's  sin  which  is  imputed  to  us  but  the 
guilt  (obligation  to  punishment)  of  his  first  sin."  But  this  seems  to 
be  a  distinction  without  a  difference,  unless  a  man  can  be  held  guilty 
before  he  is  sinful,  and  this  he  himself  rejects. 

Yet  in  his  Theology,  Dabney  takes  pains  to  draw  this  distinction,  saying 
"This  much  misunderstood  doctrine  does  not  teach  that  Adam's  act 
was  actually  made  ours.  This  conscience  repudiates.  We  know  that  we 
personally  did  not  will  it.  Nor  does  it  mean  that  we  are  to  feel  per- 
sonally defiled  and  blameworthy,  with  the  vileness  and  demerit  of 
Adam's  sin.  For  us  to  undertake  to  repent  of  it  in  this  sense  would 
be  as  preposterous  as  for  us  to  feel  self-complacency  for  the  excel- 
lence of  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  us."  p.  329.  But  is  it  any  more 
preposterous  to  say  that  sin  itself  is  charged  to  us,  than  to  say  that 
the  guilt  is  charged  to  us?  What  is  guilt?  Why,  it  is  a  relation  to  the 
law,  but  how  can  there  be  a  relation  without  something  to  be  related? 


COXFESSIONAL  REVISION.  37 

We  read  that  "where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression,"  there- 
fore sin  (guilt)  is  not  imputed  (reckoned)  where  there  is  no  law.  This 
means  no  personal   sin  no  guilt. 

The  apostle's  argument  in  Rom.  5  is  just  the  opposite  from  the  dis- 
tinction which  is  thus  drawn  between  guilt  and  sin.  Instead  of  teach- 
ing that  man  is  held  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  the  apostle  argues  the  universal 
sinfulness  of  mankind  from  the  universal  prevalence  of  death,  even  over 
those  who  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression. 
This  teaches  us,  not  that  the  babes  thus  alluded  to  were  held  guilty  of 
Adam's  act,  but  that  the  condition  of  spiritual  death  which  they  inherited 
was  a  condition  of  sin,  and  as  such  inimical  to  God's  law  and  therefore 
guilty.  They  were  guilty  not  of  Adam's  sin  but  of  their  own  depravity, 
they  were  born  sinners  and  therefore  guilty.  It  amounts  to  little  to 
make  a  fight  on  Immediate  Imputation  if  after  all  we  are  held  guilty  of 
Adam's  sin.  It  is  inconsistent  to  reject  immediate  imputation  while 
holding  to  the  covenant  of  works. 

Dabney  correctly  founded  imputation  upon  that  covenant.  "We  are  so 
associated,"  he  says,  "with  Adam  in  the  legal  consequences  of  sin  which 
closed  his  probation  and  ours  in  his,  that  we  are  treated  as  he  is,  on 
account  of  his  act."  He  makes  the  ground  of  the  "legal  union"  so  called 
two- fold,  first,  the  natural  union  with  him  as  the  root  of  all  mankind, 
second,  the  federal  relation  instituted  in  him  by  God's  covenant  with 
him."  Although  imputation  is  thus  grounded  upon  the  covenant  of 
works,  yet  in  his  review  of  Hodge's  theology  Dabney  asks  whether 
the  covenant  of  works  and  of  grace  are  not  both  grounded  in  the 
principle  of  imputation,  and  answers.  Yes.  Col.  Writ.,  Vol,  i,  p.  262.  But 
how  can  the  covenant  of  works  and  imputation  be  respectively  grounded 
upon  each   other? 

There  is  no  teaching  of  theology  which  has  caused  so  much  anxious 
thought,  and  so  much  metaphysical  discussion  in  the  vain  attempts  that 
have  been  made  to  explain  the  difficulties  which  are  inseparably  attached 
to  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  of  works. 

Let  us  now  hear  Hodge's  account  of  Imputation.  It  is  this:  "In 
virtue  of  the  union,  federal  and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
his  sin,  although  not  their  act,  is  so  imputed  to  them  that  it  is  the 
judicial  ground  of  the  penalty  threatened  against  him  coming  also  upon 
them."  Vol.  2,  p.  193.  His  formal  explanation  of  immediate  imputation 
is  this  :  "Others,  while  they  admit  that  a  corrupt  nature  is  derived  from 
Adam  by  all  his  ordinary  posterity,  yet  deny  first,  that  this  corruption 
or  spiritual  death  is  a  penal  infliction  for  sin;  and  second,  that. there 
is  any  imputation  to  Adam's  descendants  of  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin. 
All  that  is  really  imputed  to  them  is  their  own  inherent  hereditary 
depravity.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation."  "Others  discard 
entirely  the  idea  of  imputation  so  far  as  Adam's  sin  is  concerned,  and 
refer  the  hereditary  corruption  of  men  to  the  general  law  of  propagation. 
Throughout  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  like  begets  like." 

These  opinions  as  explained  by  Hodge  are  virtually  the  same,  for  those 


38  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

who  deny  that  corruption  of  nature  is  a  penal  infliction  on  account 
of  Adam's  first  sin  can  offer  no  other  explanation  of  it  than  that 
given  above,  namely,  the  law  of  heredity.  Since  Dabney  teaches  the 
imputation  of  the  guilt,  but  not  the  sin,  he  will  have  to  be  put  in  a 
separate  class,  and  since  Watson  makes  this  same  distinction,  with 
Watts,   he  and   Dabney  may  be  classed  together. 

Hodge  mentions  under  his  fourth  head  the  realistic  theory,  which 
teaches  that  "as  generic  humanity  existed  whole  and  entire  in  the  per- 
sons of  x\dam  and  Eve,  their  sin  was  the  sin  of  the  entire  race."  "We 
literally  sinned  in  Adam,  and  consequently  the  guilt  of  that  sin  is  our 
personal  guilt,  and  the  consequent  corruption  of  nature  is  the  effect  of 
our  own  voluntary  act."  p.  193.  According  to  Hodge,  to  impute  is  "to 
reckon  to,  or  to  lay  to  one's  account,"  no  matter  whether  it  have  refer- 
ence to  sin  or  righteousness,  or  whether  it  is  our  own  personally,  or 
the  sin  or  righteousness  of  another.  To  impute  sin,  he  says,  is  to  impute 
the  guilt  of  sin.  This  appears  to  bear  out  our  criticism  of  Dabney,  above 
made,  that  a  distinction  between  imputation  of  sin  and  guilt  is  a  distinc- 
tion without  a  difference.  But  Hodge  himself  seems  to  make  the  same 
distinction  for  he  says,  "By  guilt  is  meant  not  criminality  or  moral  ill- 
desert,  or  demerit,  much  less  moral  polution,  but  the  judicial  obligation  to 
satisfy  justice.  Hence  the  evil  consequent  on  the  imputation  is  not  an 
arbitrary  infliction ;  not  merely  a  misfortune  or  calamity,  not  a  chastise- 
ment in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word,  but  a  punishment,  e.  i.  an  evil 
inflicted  in  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  law,  and  for  the  satisfaction 
of  justice."  p.  194.  Thus  Hodge  defines  imputation  to  be  just  what  he 
conceives  to  have  taken  place  under  the  covenant  of  works.  Imputation 
brings  punishment,  for  it  is  a  legal  sentence,  but  how  a  man  can  be  pun- 
ished for  the  deed  of  another  in  which  he  had  no  part  whatever  he 
has   not  explained. 

He  next  explains  that  all  imputation  is  the  same,  as  admitted  by  all 
theologians.  Reformed  and  Lutheran — Adam's  sin  to  us,  our  sins  to 
Christ,  and  Christ's  righteousness  to  believers.  As  the  first  is  seen  to  be 
improperly  grounded  in  a  false  theory,  so  the  other  two  are  needless 
and  unsupported  suppositions.  Where  is  it  said  that  our  sins  were 
imputed  or  reckoned  to  Christ  ?  Rather  he  paid  a  debt  which  he  did  not 
owe,  and  one  who  pays  for  another  cannot  be  said  to  owe  the  debt  in 
his  own  person,  it  is  confusion.  We  read  that  for  the  transgression  of 
my  people  was  he  stricken,  but  it  does  not  say  that  he  was  counted  a 
sinner,  despite  the  fact  that  he  "made  his  grave  with  the  wicked ;"  on  the 
other  hand,  we  are  distinctly  told  that  "he  had  done  no  violence  nor  was 
any  deceit  in  his  mouth."  It  is  true  that  God  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of 
us  all,  but  it  was  as  a  spotless  lamb  that  he  bore  it,  and  this  is  not  the 
theory   of   imputation   by   a   great   deal. 

And  where  is  it  said  that  his  righteousness  (holiness,  active  obedience) 
was  imputed  to  us?  Nowhere.  We  read  that  Abraham  believed  God  and 
it  (the  faith)  was  "reckoned  to  him  unto  (eis)  righteousness";  in  other 
words,  he  was  counted  righteous  on  account  of  his  faith  not  on  account 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  39 

of  works,  Rom.  4,  3.  When  it  is  said  "the  reward  is  not  reckoned  as  of 
grace  but  of  debt,"  the  meaning  is  that  it  is  in  the  nature  of  reward  that 
it  is  considered  a  debt.  Abraham's  righteousness  was  in  no  sense  a 
debt,  but  a  free  gift.  Just  below  this  righteousness  is  defined  to  be  free- 
dom from  guilt,  "Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon 
sin."  But  this  is  very  different  from  a  reckoning  or  imputation  of  Chirt's 
active  obedience,  which,  means  that  his  obedience  to  law  is  reckoned  to  the 
account  of  his  people.  Since  nothing  is  taught  in  Scripture  of  the  imputa- 
tion of  our  sins  to  Christ,  Hodge's  explanation  that  such  imputation  does 
not  mean  that  Christ  actually  committed  our  sins,  or  that  he  was  morally 
criminal  on  account  of  them,  is  entirely  superfluous ;  but  if  there  were 
such  a  thing  it  would  need  explanation  as  much  as  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  his  children.  Hodge  argues  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 
from  two  assumed  imputations  which  are  equallj'  groundless.  Such  is  the 
maze  of  false  paths  into  which  the  covenant  of  works  introduces  one. 

The  Scripture  tells  us  that  the  righteousness  which  is  reckoned  to 
Abraham's  children,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  is  the  same  as  that  reckoned 
to  Abraham  himself,  viz.,  forgiveness  of  sins.  Hodge  thinks  much  of 
the  difficulty  on  this  subject  arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  word 
"righteousness,"  but  it  needs  only  an  examination  of  the  Scripture  passages 
where  the  matter  of  imputing  is  spoken  of  to  convince  one  that  there 
need  be  no  difficulty  on  this  score,  for  nowhere  is  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  or  our  sins  said  to  be  imputed  to  him. 
The  difficulty  of  this  subject  is  not  found  in  the  double  meaning  of 
"righteousness"  according  to  which  it  sometimes  means  justification  and 
sometimes  sanctification,  but  it  is  rather  to  be  found  in  the  gratuitous 
meaning  which  has  been  read  into  the  word  "impute." 

Let  us  examine  those  cases  of  the  usage  in  the  Old  Testament,  where 
the  word  still  stands  in  the  Revised  Version,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  in 
no  case  does  it  convey  the  idea  of  being  held  accountable  for  some- 
thing different  from  what  a  person  either  is  or  does,  except  as  such  a 
thing  is  deprecated  as  unjust.  For  instance,  in  i  Sam.  22:  15,  Ahimelech 
deprecates  being  held  responsible  for  something  which  he  says  he  did  not 
do.  In  2  Sam.  19:  19,  Shimei  begs  not  to  be  held  to  account  for  some- 
thing which  he  did  do :  "Let  not  my  Lord  impute  iniquity  unto  me,"  at  the 
same  time  confessing  his  sin.  Psalm  32,  which  celebrates  the  blessedness 
of  forgiveness,  furnishes  no  help  to  those  who  are  in  search  for  passages 
to  support  the  justice  of  holding  men  responsible  for  something  they 
did  not  do.  In  Lev.  7 :  .18,  "impute"  is  interpreted  in  the  same  verse. 
It  meant  that  the  offering  should  not  be  accepted  on  the  offerer's  behalf, 
that  is,  he  should  not  get  credit  for  it.  In  this  case  the  imputation 
accorded  with  the  facts.  So  in  Lev.  17:  4,  "he  hath  shed  blood" — "blood 
shall  be  imputed,"  which  means  he  shall  be  held  guilty  of  shedding 
blood,  because  he  had  actually  shed  blood.  These  are  all  the  cases 
mentioned  by  Young  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Coming  to  the  New  we  find  the  single  case  where  "impute"  is  allowed 
to  stand,  Rom.  5:    13,   and  this  announces  a  principle  of  God's  judgment 


40  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

directly  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  of  works  and  the  theory 
of  immediate  imputation:  "Sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law," 
which  means  simply  what  is  asserted  directly  in  Rom.  4:  15,  that  a  body 
cannot  be  counted  to  have  done  that  which  he  did  not  do  (broken  a  law 
which  did  not  exist).  "Where  there  is  no  law,  neither  is  there  trans- 
gression," lit.,  where  law  is  not  neither  is  there  transgression.  A  body 
must  therefore  have  transgressed  the  law  before  he  can  possibly  be  held 
accountable  for  transgression,  for  it  would  be  contrary  to  truth  to  hold 
him  to  account  for  something  which  he  did  not  do.  This  contradicts 
the  covenant  of  works  and  immediate  imputation.  This  principle  is  laid 
down,  as  a  settled  principle  of  God's  moral  government,  and  man's  moral 
judgments  endorse  it  as  just.  The  theory  of  a  covenant  of  works  and 
immediate  imputation,  which  is  simply  the  covenant  in  operation,  must  be 
given  up,  because  it  contravenes  the  eternal  principles  of  God's  truth  and 
justice. 

The  passage  in  Rom.  4:  15,  deals  another  death  blow  to  the  covenant 
of  works,  for  it  shows  that  what  that  theory  advances  is  impossible, 
since  it  teaches  that  there  could  never  be  a  scheme  of  salvation  by  law. 
The  teaching  that  salvation  is  by  law  is  subversive  of  the  gospel  by 
promise  (v.  14),  and  the  reason  is,  "law  worketh  wrath."  Let  it  be  noted 
that  the  idea  of  law  is  purely  abstract,  and  that  as  such  the  article  is 
omitted  in  verse  13  :  "For  not  through  law  was  the  promise  to  Abraham 
or  to  his  seed  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world."  It  cannot  be  that 
the  law  of  Moses  is  referred  to,  for  as  that  was  430  years  later  it  could 
have  no  application  to  the  case.  This  same  abstract  idea  must  be  kept 
up  in  the  following  verses:  For  if  they  that  are  of  law  be  heirs,  faith  is 
made  void.  If  they  are  heirs  by  law  (without  the  article)  faith  is  made 
void.  This  truth  applies  just  as  well  before  the  law  of  Moses  was  given 
as  after  it. 

The  article  with  law  in  the  following  clause  is  not  an  indication 
that  the  law  of  Moses  is  referred  to,  it  is  rather  the  law  before  mentioned, 
and  is  still  the  same  abstract  idea.  "The  law"'  just  referred  to  in  its 
abstract  conception  as  a  principle  of  the  divine  government  "worketh 
wrath."  It  is  impossible  that  it  could  work  anything  else  in  the  case  of 
creatures  already  fallen.  But  we  may  go  further  and  say  that  it  never 
could  have  done  any  better  even  in  Eden,  for  the  event  proves  it,  and 
reason  adds  the  truth  that  with  man  left  to  the  exercise  of  his  own  linite 
powers  it  must  ever  have  been  so.  There  is  no  reason  therefore  why  this 
truth  may  not  have  the  force  of  a  universal  proposition :  "law  worketh 
wrath."  This  being  so,  salvation  could  never  have  been  otherwise  than  by 
faith  in  God,  as  the  God  of  our  salvation.  The  clause  which  is  found  in 
connection  with  this,  viz. :  "Where  law  is  not,  neither  is  there  trans- 
gression," goes  to  show  that  man  is  necessarily  under  law,  even  as  it 
says  in  Ch.  5:  13,  "up  to  the  time  of  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world,  but 
sin  is  not  reckoned  where  there  is  no  law,"  therefore,  man  was  under 
law  from  the  beginning,  long  before  the  law  of  Moses  was  heard  of.  The 
apostle    alluded    to    the    fact    that    infants    shared    in    the    death,    which 


CONFESSiOXAL  REVISION.  41 

shows  them  lo  have  been  sinful,  and  themselves  amenable  to  the  curse 
of  the  law.  This  completes  the  universality  of  the  condition  of  death 
which  one  man  brought  into  the  world  and  upon  which  (epi  ho)  all  sinned 
(v.  12).  "For  that  all  sinned"  is  a  mistranslation  which  wantonly 
perverts  two  of  the  commonest  Greek  words,  and  the  translation  is  to  be 
traced  to  the  Latin  Vulgate  rather  than  to  the  Greek,  and  has  held  its 
place  by  the  law  of  prescription  in   spite  of  the   Greek.      See   Meyer. 

This  is  the  only  passage  which  gives  the  shadow  of  a  foundation  to 
immediate  imputation,  for  the  rendering  "for  that  all  sinned"  is  taken  to 
mean  that  they  sinned  when  Adam  sinned,  and  so  sinned  in  him. 
This  is  the  rotten  support  which  has  served  the  purpose  of  bolstering  up 
two  of  the  theories  connected  with  the  covenant  of  works.  The  first 
is  the  theory  of  realism,  which  asserts  that  all  mankind  were  personally 
present  in  Adam  when  he  sinned,  and  so  they  sinned  in  him  and  are 
justly  held  accountable  for  an  act  which  was  common  to  him  and  to 
them.  This  is  perhaps  the  vainest  dream  that  the  mind  of  man  ever 
conceived,  but  it  has  a  close  second  in  the  theory  of  immediate  imputa- 
tion, which  teaches  that  men  were  not  there  personally,  but  all  the  same 
were  treated  as  it  they  were  there,  since  they  are  punished  for  Adam's 
act  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  Alas,  alas,  what  a  commentary  on 
the  impotence  of  the  human  mind  that  two  such  awful  dreams  should 
have  held  their  place  in  theology  all  along  through  the  ages  from  the 
time  of  Augustine,  who  was  the  author  of  the  first,  and  perhaps  Ter- 
tullian,  who  has  been  credited  with  the  second.  Dabney  says  Tertullian 
originated  the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation  but  Augustus  H.  Strong 
says  it  was  first  broached  by  Cocceius.  Well  had  it  been  for  theology 
if  these  dreamers  had  not  given  out  their  vain  imaginations  to  the  world. 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  various  accounts  of  how  sin  and  guilt 
come  upon  all  mankind  were  constructed  in  order  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion of  the  equity  in  the  case.  How  can  man  be  justly  held  accountable 
for  Adam's  sin?  In  their  eagerness  to  shed  light  on  this  difficult  ques- 
tion the  theologians  have  evidently  forgotten  to  examine  the  foundations 
upon  which  so  remarkable  a  proposition  rests.  Starting  out  with  the 
assumed  doctrine  that  man  is  in  fact  held  accountable  for  Adam's  act, 
the  theologians  have  strained  their  wits  to  account  for  the  doctrine,  not 
recognizing  that  the  doctrine  itself  is  not  founded  upon  Scripture.  The 
realist  is  so  badly  pressed  by  this  question  that  he  takes  refuge  in 
an  explanation  which  offends  all  sound  reason  and  common  sense, 
almost  obliterating  the  distinction  of  personality  in  man,  and  verging 
dangerously  near  to  pantheism.  If  the  race  can  have  their  personality 
merged  into  that  of  Adam,  it  is  an  easy  step  to  merging  Adam's  per- 
sonality into  that  of  the  Creator  himself.  Some  who  even  reject  the 
covenant  of  works  hold  on  to  this  pernicious  theory,  for  instance  Shedd 
and  A.  H.  Strong. 

The  theory  of  immediate  imputation  which  offends  against  man's 
moral  judgments,  and  contradicts  Scripture,  really  furnishes  no  solution 
to   the   difficult  problem   which   the   theologians   have   set   for  thernselves. 


42  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

The  idea  that  Adam  entered  into  a  bargain  or  agreement  for  the  life 
or  death  of  his  descendants  upon  a  trial  of  his  own  is  incredible, 
because  nowhere  is  such  power  of  life  and  death  given  to  man.  Would 
it  not  have  been  murder  in  inconceivably  great  form,  for  Adam  to  have 
risked  the  lives  of  his  descendants  in  this  kind  of  a  transaction?  Did 
the  God  who  teaches  the  sin  of  presumption  in  risking  life  put  such  a 
problem  before  Adam?  Horrible  the  thought.  If  it  was  wrong  for 
Cain  to  commit  murder,  it  would  have  been  unspeakably  more  horrible 
for  Adam  to  have  risked  the  murder  of  all  his  descendants,  and  the 
theory  that  he  bargained  to  do  it  only  adds  to  the  cold  bloodedness  of 
the  murder.  The  theory  of  the  realist  which  makes  the  man  himself 
responsible  for  his  own  death  is  infinitely  preferable,  despite  the  fact 
that  it  offends  against  common  sense  in  thus  asserting  that  men  com- 
mitted suicide  thousands  of  years  before  they  were  born.  But  didn't 
Adam  bring  the  death  after  all?  Yes,  but  not  by  direct  intention  or 
bargain.  He  could  not  help  being  the  race  father,  for  he  was  the  first 
man  created.  His  fall  was  his  weakness,  but  not  the  case  of  presumption 
which    the   immediate    imputationist   imagines. 

Strong  rejects  the  covenant  of  works  decidedly.  It  would  be  interesting 
to  hear  him  or  Shedd  explain  why  it  is  they  hold  on  to  the  hypothesis 
of  realism.  Sweeping  away  the  covenant  of  works  does  away  with 
the  problem  which  realism  was  intended  to  solve.  It  does  away  with 
the  necessity  for  immediate  imputation,  and  leaves  us  with  only  a 
natural  problem,  which  can  hardly  be  called  a  problem,  since  the  work- 
ing of  the  natural  law  is  seen  to  be  a  fact  "of  observation,  however 
inscrutable  it  may  be  to  us  that  the  moral  defect  is  transmitted  as  an 
invariable  trait  of  corrupted  human  nature.  It  is  better  to  leave  this 
problem  where  the  Bible  leaves  it  rather  than  magnify  the  difficulties  by 
unsupported  philosophical  theories. 

BEARING  OF  ABRAHAMTC  COVENANT  AS  IMPROPERLY 

INTERPRETED. 

The  foregoing  discussion  of  the  covenant  of  works  was  written  with- 
out any  direct  connection  of  thought  with  the  question  of  infant  salva- 
tion. Belief  in  the  possibility  or  probability  of  infant  damnation  is 
readily  seen  to  be  one  of  the  corollaries  of  that  doctrine.  It  is  only 
that  doctrine  which  makes  possible  that  confusion  of  thought  by  which 
corruption  of  nature  and  liability  to  punishment  are  confounded  with 
God's  final  judgments.  This  theory  accustoms  the  mind  to  the  idea 
of  the  natural  damnability  of  infants  and  the  absence  of  a  remedy  for 
this  condition  converts  damnability  into  damnation.  The  second  stage 
of  the  process  is  encouraged  by  an  interpretation  of  God's  covenant 
with  Abraham  which  makes  it  a  promise  to  the  natural  Israel,  and 
exclusive  in  its  nature,  so  that  it  becomes  an  easy  inference  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  heathen  as  such  from  salvation;  and  this  general  infer- 
ence is  broad  enough  to  include  even  the  infant  children   in  the  absence 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  43 

of  any  clear  provision  by  which  they  may  be  excepted.  The  process  of 
thought  by  which  they  are  excluded  from  salvation  is  not  conjectural, 
but  it  comes  to  the  front  in  the  direct  discussion  of  infant  salvation, 
and  especially  of  the  "elect  infant"  clause  of  the  Confession.  It  came 
out  in  the  early  discussion  of  this  question,  and  the  writer  who  had  long 
before  written  upon  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  refused  the  privilege  of 
answering  the  inconclusive  arguments  of  those  who  contended  that  we 
have  a  promise  of  the  salvation  of  the  infant  children  of  the  church 
but  not  of  the  outside  world  of  unbelievers. 

The  discussion  of  the  meaning  and  scope  of  God's  promise  to  Abra- 
ham, his  great  covenant  of  salvation  with  the  world  in  general  and  the 
church  in  particular,  was  also  written  before  the  subjects  of  the  elect 
infant  clause  and  infant  salvation  were  introduced  to  the  church  for 
general  discussion  and  decision.  It  will  not  be  the  less  valuable  because 
it  has  been  discussed  purely  upon  its  merits  without  primary  reference 
to  the  mistaken  inferences  which  have  been  drawn  from  its  erroneous 
interpretation.  It  so  happens  that  this  and  the  former  discussion  are 
taken  from  extended  manuscripts  intended  for  publication.  We  trust 
that  this  preliminary  airing  will  not  detract  from  the  value  of  these 
discussions  in  their  more  formal  original  connections,  and  that  these 
more    extended   discussions   may   some    day   see   the   light. 

It  has  been  claimed  for  Calvinism  that  it  is  the  only  scheme  which 
consistently  provides  for  infant  salvation  because  it  seemingly  provides 
for  infant  election.  But  this  does  not  appear  to  be  a  just  claim,  as 
is  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  church  has  been  unwilling  to  assert  that  all 
dying  infants  are  of  the  elect,  and  the  idea  that  the  dying  infants  of 
believers  are  elect  and  saved  is  connected  with  that  false  interpretation 
of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  which  makes  it  teach  that  the  church  will 
be  saved  to  the  exclusion  of  the  outside  world.  The  dying  infants  of 
believers  are  considered  to  be  saved  because  they  are  children  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  is  understood  to  make  them  heirs  of  the  promise  of  salva- 
tion, they  being  saved  on  their  parent's  account.  This  teaching  is 
erroneous,  for  the  teaching  of  Scripture  concerning  the  meaning  and 
scope  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  does  not  bear  it  out.  It  is  a  mistake 
to  hold  that  all  the  natural  children  of  Abraham  are  the  true  people  of 
God,  and  so  how  upon  this  principle  can  it  be  made  out  that  all  the  infants 
of  believers  even  are  of  the  number  of  the  saved,  and  are  of  God's  elect? 
And  if  the  covenant  does  not  furnish  proper  ground  for  the  assertion 
that  even  the  infants  of  believers  are  elect,  what  do  we  know 
of  any  limited  class  of  such  infants?  In  this  case  to  talk  of  "elect 
infants"  can  mean  no  more  than  that  if  any  such  infants  are  elect  they 
will  be  saved,  which  being  interpreted  means  that  whomsoever  of  dying 
infants  God  has  determined  to  save  he  will  save;  but  as  to  whether 
this  includes  the  whole  of  the  class  of  dying  infants  we  are  unable 
to  say.  To  say  that  God  will  save  whom  he  has  elected  to  save  is  a 
worthless  truism,  which  is  deceptive  in  that  it  stands  for  some  pro- 
fessed  knowledge   which   we    do   not    possess.      It    is   merely    a   jugglery 


44  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

with   words.      The   boasted    superiority   of    Calvinists   on    this    subject    is 
therefore  without  foundation. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  study  of  the  covenant  which  constitutes  God's 
covenant  of  hfe  with  the  world. 

THE  COVENANT  CHARTER. 

The  church  of  God  on  earth  finds  its  true  origin  and  its  original 
constitution,  in  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  as  the 
father  of  the  faithful.  Of  course  we  find  traces  of  the  true  religion 
running  on  back  to  the  very  beginning,  but  we  do  not  find  any  organiza- 
tion of  the  righteous  into  an  association  of  God's  people,  which  per- 
petuated itself  and  carried  out  the  purposes  of  a  church.  God  called 
Abraham  out  of  the  world  of  heathenism  and  set  him  apart,  together 
with  his  family  unto  the  worship  and  service  of  the  true  God.  He  con- 
stituted him  the  father  of  the  faithful  for  all  time  by  an  everlasting 
promise,  sealed  with  a  sign  or  token  which  was  to  be  applied  to  all  the 
male  members  of  his  race.  This  covenant  is  therefore  properly  con- 
sidered the  charter  of  the  church's  existence,  a  charter  which  has  never 
been  superseded  and  is  never  out  of  date.  The  church  cannot  properly 
be  said  to  have  sprung  from  Moses,  and  the  giving  of  the  law  on 
mount  Sinai ;  nor  is  it  correct  to  date  the  church  from  the  coming 
of  Christ,  or  the  day  of  Pentecost.  A  careful  study  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  goes  to  show 
that  this  is  the  only  true  starting  point;  nothing  else  can  lay  claim  to 
the  promise  upon  which  the  church  rests. 

If  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  really  the  charter  of  the  church  in  all 
ages  of  its  existence,  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  a  proper  understanding 
of  this  promise,  together  with  the  significance  of  the  seal  which  was 
first  attached  to  it,  must  be  of  the  highest  importance  in  any  inquiry  into 
the  nature  of  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments. 

It  can  be  readily  understood  that  this  investigation  must  have  an  impor- 
tant bearing  upon  all  those  ecclesiological  questions  which  so  divide  the 
Christian  Church  of  to-day.  In  view  of  this  fact  it  is-  surprising  that 
so  little  attention  has  been  given  to  this  promise  by  the  great  majority 
of  ecclesiological  writers,  of  whom  only  two  or  three  have  even  attempted 
a  historical  and  exegetical  treatment  of  the  church.  Nearly  all  of  the 
writers  have  pursued  a  defective,  a  priori  method  in  dealing  with  the 
subject. 

We  shall  not  begin  the  discussion  with  a  definition,  for  we  wish 
to  pursue  the  method  of  investigation  throughout.  A  thing  must  be 
investigated  before  it  can  be  understood,  and  it  must  be  understood 
before  it  can  be  defined.  A  disregard  of  this  plain  common  sense  method 
which  is  the  only  method  of  scientific  investigation,  is  the  explanation  of 
nearly  all  the  differences  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  the  Church,  which 
characterizes  the  churches  of  to-day.  The  conceptions  of  various  de- 
nominations result  from  prepossessions  as  to  the  importance  of  the  essential 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  45 

nature  of  certain  matters  of  form  or  of  organization.  These  give  rise 
to  various  detlnitions  of  the  church,  which  are  of  no  higher  authority 
than  the  mere  opinions  or  preferences  of  men.  The  Scripture  gives  no 
formal  definition  of  the  church  visible;  and  in  the  absence  of  a  scrip- 
tural definition,  we  can  make  one  for  ourselves  only  by  a  comprehensive 
study  of  the  church  in  its  historical  development.  Of  course  we  shalf 
not  have  to  proceed  far  before  we  are  able  to  decide  that  a  church  is 
some  kind  of  organization  or  body  composed  of  God's  people,  or  those 
who  profess  to  be  such;  but  the  details  of  the  definition  can  only  come 
by  a  careful  examination  of  the  facts  relative  to  the  institution,  and 
the  constitution  of  such  organization  which  God  established  in  the 
earth  for  the  furtherance  of  his  own  plans. 

For  the  purposes  of  our  discussion,  we  find  it  convenient  to 
begin  with  an  exegetical  study  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  but  assume 
nothing  by  so  doing,  as  will  be  observed  in  the  development  of  the 
subject. 

The  Abrahamic  covenant  may  be  said  to  have  had  four  principaf 
stages  of  development.  Promises  were  made  to  Abraham  on  four  dif- 
ferent occasions,  exclusive  of  that  form  of  the  promise  made  in  Gen. 
22:  18.  They  are  found  in  Gen.  12:  1-3,  Ch.  13:  14-16,  Ch.  15:  Ch.  17. 
Besides  this  there  is  an  explanatory  statement  by  the  Lord  himself  in 
Ch.  18:  18,  19.  Their  substantial  unity  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that  all 
alike  have  both  the  temporal  and  spiritual  elements.  The  first  promise 
of  chapter  12  contains  not  merely  a  grant  of  material  blessings,  "I  will 
make  of  thee  a  great  nation,"  but  also  that  which  is  admitted  by  all  to  be 
a  promise  of  spiritual  blessings;  "in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."  The  same  is  contained  in  the  phrase,  "Be  thou  a 
blessing."  After  Abraham,  in  obedience  to  God's  command,  comes  upon 
the  land,  he  receives  this  promise :  "All  the  land  which  thou  seest  to 
thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to  thy  seed  forever.  And  I  will  make  thy  seed 
as  the  dust  of  the  earth,  so  that  if  a  man  can  number  the  dust  of  the 
earth  then  shall  thy  seed  be  numbered."  (Gen.  13:  14-16.)  The  promise 
of  a  literally  innumerable  seed  is  perfectly  explicit,  and  since  it  cannot 
find  its  fulfilment  in  a  multiplication  of  the  natural  seed,  it  can  only 
refer  to  Abraham's  spiritual  seed.  The  phrase  "dust  of  the  earth" 
might  be  understood  to  be  an  exaggerated  expression  for  a  great  number, 
were  it  not  for  the  following  clause,  but  this  clause  shuts  off  a  figura- 
tive interpretation,  and  it  can  mean  nothing  less  than  the  countless  number 
of  Abraham's  spiritual  children,  the  "multitude  which  no  man  could 
number"  pictured  in  revelation.  The  promise  in  chapter  15,  "So  shall 
thy  seed  be,"  comparing  Abraham's  seed  to  the  stars  for  multitude,  is 
simply  an  alternate  form  of  the  same  promise;  and  it  is  certain  that  it 
is  not  a  promise  of  simply  a  natural  seed,  for  in  Rom.  4:  18,  the 
apostle  quotes  the  very  words  of  this  promise,  as  the  equivalent  of 
the  promise  in  chapter  17,  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many 
nations :  "He  in  hope  believed  against  hope  to  the  end  that  he  might 
become   the    father   of   many  nations   according  to   that   which   had   been 


46  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

spoken.  So  shall  thy  seed  be."  Again,  Acts  3 :  25,  identifies  the  promise 
of  chapter  17  with  that  of  chapter  12,  for  it  is  a  mixture  of  the  two 
passages :  "In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed.'' 
(cf.  ch.  22:  18.)  These  Scriptures  clearly  exclude  the  interpretation 
which  finds  in  these  promises  two  covenants,  separate  and  distinct  in 
their  character,  the  one  confined  to  temporal  blessings,  and  the  other 
to  spiritual.  Besides  this,  the  passage  in  Hebrews  ir  represents  even  the 
ownership  of  the  land  as  a  part  of  the  spiritual  promise:  "By  faith  he 
became  a  sojourner  in  the  land  of  promise  as  in  a  land  not  his  own,  dwell- 
ing in  tents  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise: 
for  he  looked  for  the  city  which  hath  the  foundations,  whose  builder  and 
maker  is  God."  Abraham's  faith  recognized  in  the  promise  of  the  owner- 
ship of  the  land  the  assurance  of  salvation  itself.  He  must  have  under- 
stood that  the  possession  of  Canaan  was  typical  of  the  possession  of  the 
heavenly   rest. 

There  is  no  seal  to  the  promise  of  the  seed  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of 
Genesis,  except  as  this  is  involved  in  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan. 
Of  course  the  promise  that  Abraham  should  possess  the  land  involved  sJ 
seed  numerous  enough  to  take  possession  of  it;  but  the  seal  had  special 
reference  to  the  possession.  It  was  given  in  answer  to  Abraham's  ques- 
tion, "Whereby  shall  I  know  that  I  shall  inherit  it?"  The  answer  was 
the  smoking  furnace,  and  the  torch  passing  between  the  parts  of  the 
sacrifices.  God  gives  the  meaning  of  the  transaction  :  "Unto  thy  seed 
have  I  given  this  land."  It  was  the  ratifying  seal  to  a  deed  of  gift. 
This  transaction  secured  to  Abraham  and  his  natural  descendants  tem- 
poral blessings ;  but  it  furnishes  no  ground  for  drawing  a  hard  and  fast 
line  between  this  promise  and  that  of  chapter  17,  calling  one  temporal 
and  the  other  spiritual.  This  promise  is  on  the  other  hand,  repeated  in 
chapter  17,  as  an  integral  part  of  the  spiritual  promise  in  its  highest 
form  of  development.  In  fact,  in  chapter  17  there  is  a  complete  blending 
of  the  elements.  First,  the  distinctively  spiritual  element  is  seen  in  the 
promise  that  Abraham  was  to  be  the  father  of  a  multitude  of  nations. 
This  promise  is  made  in  the  same  absolute  form  as  the  last.  God  sairl, 
"As  for  me  behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  the 
father  of  a  multitude  of  nations."  If  this  is  a  promise  of  a  spiritual  seed, 
and  it  can  be  nothing  else,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  it  could  be  definitely 
secured  to  Abraham  in  no  other  way  than  by  an  absolute  promise. 
In  token  that  it  is  absolute,  and  the  blessing  already  secured  to  Abra- 
ham, he  at  this  time  receives  the  name  which  was  to  designate  him 
as  the  possessor  of  the  promised  blessing.  His  fatherhood  of  an 
innumerable  spiritual  seed,  is  at  once  betokened  by  the  change  of  name 
from  Abram  to  Abraham,  God  himself  giving  the  meaning  of  the  change. 

In  the  next  clause  there  is  no  doubt  a  reference  to  temporal  blessings 
for  the  nation  of  Israel :  "I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful."  The 
spiritual  seed  was  at  first  at  least  to  spring  out  of  the  natural  seed ; 
Abraham  was  to  be  a  great  nation.  The  clause  "I  will  make  nations 
of   thee,"   etc.    might   be    understood   of   the   natural    Israel   if   the   plural 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  47 

could  apply  to  the  division  into  two  kingdoms.  But  if  this  be  a  refer- 
ence to  the  nation  of  Israel,  it  must  not  be  allowed  to  rob  the  next 
verse  of  its  proper  spiritual  signiticance.  "I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  throughout  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  thy  seed 
after  thee."  This  part  of  the  promise  is  pointed  out  by  ecclesiological 
writers  as  certainly  showing  that  this  is  an  ecclesiological  covenant, 
establishing  God's  Church.  While  this  is  true,  it  should  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  church  here  designated  is  the  spiritual  church  rather  than  the 
natural  Israel  as  such.  The  clause  "throughout  their  generations"  should 
not  mislead,  for  this  word  is  frequently  used  in  Scripture  in  a  moral,  or 
spiritual  sense.  It  cannot  be  maintained  with  any  show  of  reason  that  the 
spiritual  blessing  of  salvation  was  intended  for  all  the  natural  Israel. 
God  promised  to  be  "a  God"  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  This  included  all 
that  was  contained  in  the  relation  designated  by  God's  peculiar  ecclesio- 
logical name,  Jehovah,  the  God  of  their  salvation.  If  he  had  been  really 
the  God  of  their  salvation  to  all  the  nation,  all  would  have  been  saved; 
but  they  were  not.  On  the  other  hand,  their  history  shows  them  to 
have  been  a  stiff-necked  and  rebellious  people,  and  they  were  finally  as  a 
nation  rejected  from  being  God's  people.  Paul  tells  us  plainly  that  "they 
are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel;  neither  because  they  are  Abra- 
ham's seed  are  they  all  children."  It  is  not,  therefore,  "as  though  the 
word  of  God  had  come  to  nought"  that  the  natural  Israel  failed  to 
obtain  the  promise,  for  the  children  of  the  flesh  were  not  the  children 
of  God.  Rom.  g :  8.  On  the  other  hand,  only  "the  children  of  the 
promise  are  reckoned  for  a  seed."  See  also  Gal.  3  :  7-9.  In  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  Romans,  Paul  teaches  again  that  God's  people  to  whom  the 
promise  was  made  were  the  elect.  God  did  not  cast  off  -his  people,  he 
argues,  because  some  were  hardened  and  failed  to  receive  the  blessing, 
for  the  election  obtained  it.  Then  according  to  Paul's  exposition  the 
promise  in  Abraham  was  made  only  to  the  elect — in  the  highest  sense. 
The  external  Israel  was  only  the*  shell  that  contained  the  kernel,  nothing 
more.  In  a  sense  Christ  was  the  seed  to  whom  the  promise  was  made, 
but  it  embraces  all  who  are  in  him  by  faith.  It  has  been  claimed  that 
verse  7  must  refer  to  temporal  blessings,  because  God  says,  "I  will 
establish  my  covenant,"  the  word  establish  showing  an  allusion  to  a 
former  transaction,  rather  than  a  new  grant.  But  the  Hebrew  word  for 
"establish"  will  not  be  found  to  bear  out  this  contention,  for  the  same 
word  is  used  of  the  covenant  with  Noah,  in  Gen.  6:  18  and  Gen.  9:  9,  where 
only  the  original  making  of  a  covenant  is  referred  to.  This  shows  con- 
clusively that  nothing  can  be  determined  from  the  language  used,  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  covenant,  except  as  there  is  in  the  word  a  hint  of  the 
sovereign   and   gratuitous   character   of   the   promise. 

Another  reason  for  rejecting  the  interpretation  which  makes  verse  7 
refer  to  the  covenant  of  chapter  15,  is  that  this  robs  chapter  17  of  its 
principal  matter,  and  its  most  important  differentiating  feature.  Examin- 
ing the   promises   from  the  beginning,  it  appears  that   each  new^  promise 


48  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

contains  something  additional  to  that  which  preceded.  In  Gen.  12,  there 
is  no  definite  promise  of  the  land,  but  the  command,  "Get  thee  out 
of  thy  county  *  *  *  unto  the  land  that  I  will  show  thee"  is  accom- 
panied by  the  promise  that  Abraham  shall  be  a  great  nation.  In  Gen. 
13,  Abraham  having  come  upon  the  land,  receives  the  definite  promise 
that  the  land  which  he  sees  shall  be  a  gift  to  himself  and  his  seed  forever, 
while  the  promise  of  the  seed  itself  is  enlarged  from  a  nation  to  an 
innumerable  multitude.  According  to  chapter  15,  the  promise  of  an 
innumerable  spiritual  seed  is  to  find  a  partial  fulfilment  in  the  line  of  his 
real  descendants,  and  God  adds  his  pledge  to  the  promise  of  the  land. 
In  chapter  17  the  "multitude"  of  chapter  13  becomes  a  multitude  of 
nations,  and  the  promise  is  not  only  with  Abraham  himself,  but  with  his 
seed,  which  it  is  pointed  out  makes  this  a  promise  to  the  church.  The 
sign  of  circumcision  becomes  a  constant  reminder  of  the  promise  in  this 
enlarged  form.  The  promise  of  the  land,  though  included  in  the  spiritual' 
promise,  is  not  directly  sealed  by  circumcision,  for  it  had  its  seal  in 
chapter  15.  It  is  inserted  in  chapter  17  in  order  to  give  completeness 
to  the  covenant  which  establishes  the  church.  The  church  visible  must 
have  a  home,  and  the  temporal  home  secured  by  the  promise  typified 
the  eternal  home  in  heaven. 

THE  PROMISE  ABSOLUTE. 

In  accordance  with  its  nature  as  a  promise  of  salvation  to  the  elect 
people  of  God,  the  righeous,  it  is  absolutely  sure,  as  a  gift  of  sovereign 
grace.  It  is  not  at  all  conditional  in  the  sense  of  being  a  bargain  or 
contract  between  two  parties,  in  which  the  result  is  made  to  depend  upon 
a  condition  or  stipulation.  The  clause  "walk  before  me  and  be  thou  per- 
fect" is  not  rightly  so  regarded.  This  is  God's  command,  and  the  promise 
assures  the  existence  of  a  people  of  the  character  thus  indicated.  God 
speaks  in  his  majesty  and  sovereignty  saying:  "As  for  me,  behold,  my 
covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  the  father  of  a  multitude  of 
nations."  There  is  no  tarrying  for  the  fulfilment  of  a  condition,  but 
God  immediately  changes  the  name  Abram  to  Abraham  in  token  that  he 
already  possessed  the  blessing,  in  that  it  was  made  sure  by  God's  word. 
The  fulfilment  of  the  promise  being  in  God's  view  involved  in  no  uncer- 
tainty, God's  making  his  covenant  is  simply  giving  his  promise,  which 
promise  was  from  the  first  absolutely  certain  of  fulfilment.  The  promise 
is  reference  to  the  land  of  Canaan  is  itself  absolute  in  form :  "In  that 
day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  saying,  unto  thy  seed 
have  I  given  this  land."  The  same  unconditional  form  of  covenant  is 
found  in  the  promise  to  Noah.  Gen.  6:  18.  The  unconditional  feature 
appears  in  the  first  promise  made  to  Abraham  in  chapter  12.  When  God 
first  appeared  to  Abraham,  he  did  not  ask  him  whether  he  desired  a 
blessing,  or  whether  he  was  willing  to  do  anything  to  obtain  it,  he  came 
with  a  command,  "Get  thee  out  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and 
from  thy  father's  house  unto  the  land  that  I  will  show  thee."     Of  course 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  49 

there  was  a  sense  in  which  the  blessing  was  consequent  upon  obedience. 
If  Abraham  had  refused  obedience,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  would 
have  received  any  blessing,  but  God  knew  what  Abraham  by  his  grace 
would  do.  He  saw  the  end  from  the  beginning,  hence  the  blessing  was 
as  absolute  in  form  as  the  command  :  "I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation, 
and  I  will  bless  thee  and  make  thy  name  great:  and  be  thou  a  blessing: 
and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  him  that  curseth  thee  will  T 
curse,  and  in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This 
was  spoken  to  Abraham  as  the  divinely  appointed  head  of  the  church  as 
appears  from  Paul's  exposition  of  the  promise  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
Romans.  Since  it  was  according  to  grace  it  was  sure  to  all  the  (spiritual) 
seed.     Rom.  4:16. 

In  chapter  15  appears  the  first  intimation  of  any  connection  between 
Abraham's  state  of  mind  and  the  promise:  "He  believed  in  the  Lord, 
and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  (unto)  righteousness."  This  does  not  say 
that  his  faith  was  the  instrumental  cause  of  his  salvation,  but  it  indicates 
the  occasion  of  the  promise  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  anticipates 
that  faith  would  become  the  channel  through  which  the  blessing  of  salva- 
tion would  be  conveyed  to  the  true  people  of  God  in  all  ages.  Abra- 
ham's faith  was  not  the  antecedent  but  the  consequent  of  the  promise, 
therefore  it  did  not  condition  the  promise,  (cf.  Rom.  4:  20,  21.)  It 
now  seems  clear  that  the  words  "walk  before  me  and  be  thou  perfect" 
are  not  to  be  understood  as  a  stipulation  of  the  promise.  It  is  in  fact 
a  part  of  that  salvation  which  the  promise  secures.  Holiness  is  not  the 
procuring   cause   of   salvation,   but   it  is   salvation   itself. 

The  absolute  character  of  the  promise  and  its  spiritual  nature  go  to- 
gether. If  it  is  a  promise  of  spiritual  good,  that  is,  salvation,  it  is  plain 
that  it  can  only  include  those  who  are  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham, 
the  righteous.  Only  God  could  know  the  individuals  who  were  really 
embraced  within  its  scope ;  but  it  is  evident  that  it  included  all  who 
would  be  saved — all  the  elect  people  of  God  who  should  at  last  stand 
before  the  great  white  throne,  as  members  of  the  complete  church  of  the 
redeemed  in  glory.  But  although  really  made  to  embrace  the  church 
invisible  rather  than  the  visible  church  it  constitutes  tJie  great 
promise  of  sali'ation  to  man.  As  such  it  was  committed  to  Abra- 
ham as  the  head  of  the  visible  church,  and  l)y  the  accompanying  sign  of 
circumcision  his  family  and  race  were  constituted  the  Church  of  God  on 
Earth.  A  different  view  of  the  covenant  has  been  held  by  some  eminent 
theologians  and  interpreters,  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  establish 
this  exposition  by  a  more  extended  discussion  and  examination  of  other 
views. 

Dr.  John  M.  Mason,  whose  valuable  discussion  of  the  church  points 
out  the  ecclesiological  character  of  the  covenant,  understands  it  to 
promise  certain  spiritual  blessings  to  the  external  church,  thus  making  it 
apply  to  all  Abraham's  natural  seed,  with  certain  specially  named  excep- 
tions. He  makes  a  broad  distinction  between  the  promise  of  chapter  15 
and   that   of    chapter    17,    making  the   one   a   promise   of   temporal   good, 


50  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

and  the  other  of  spiritual  blessings.  The  promise  of  chapter  i",  "I  will 
be  a  God  unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee,"  establishes  a  new  relation 
to  God,  which,  however,  is  not  "Abraham's  relation  to  God  as  the  God 
of  his  salvation,  because  in  that  sense  God  was  his  God  long  before." 
Besides,  it  embraced  his  seed  as  well  as  himself,  and  "God  did  not  now 
engage  to  be  their  God  with  respect  to  eternal  life,  for  all  that  was 
settled  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  privilege  could  not  reach  beyond 
those  who  were  partakers  of  the  same  precious  faith  with  Abraham, 
whereas  in  the  sense  of  this  covenant  God  was  the  God  of  all  Abraham's 
seed  without  exception,  under  the  limitations  which  restricted  the  cove- 
nant operation  first  to  Isaac  and  afterwards  to  Jacob,  including  such  as 
should  choose  their  God,  their  faith  and  their  society."  (Peck.)  The 
clause,  "throughout  their  generations"  is  understood  to  teach  that  "as 
soon  as  a  new  individual  of  his  seed  was  generated,  he  was  within  the 
covenant,  and  so  God  was  his  God."  Hence  it  is  argued  that  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  his  seed  contemplated  them  not  primarily  or  im- 
mediately as  the  election  of  grace,  but  as  an  aggregate  which  is  severed 
from  the  bulk  of  mankind,  and  placed  in  a  social  character  under  pecu- 
liar relations  to  the  most  high  God." 

Now  it  will  be  observed  that  this  view  of  the  meaning  and  scope  of  the 
covenant  finds  its  only  support  in  that  interpretation  which  makes  a 
wide  difference  between  the  several  forms  of  the  promise,  and  con- 
fines the  spiritual  element  to  chapter  17.  The  mistake  probably  arises 
from  an  effort  to  interpret  the  promises  as  they  stand,  without  bringing 
to  bear  the  full  light  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  for  surely  Paul's 
exposition  in  Romans  (Ch.  9:  11),  and  Galatians  (Ch.  3),  and  others 
already  quoted,  place  the  true  meaning  of  the  covenant  beyond  question. 

It  is  very  true  that  there  is  involved  a  promise  of  ecclesiastical  privi- 
leges, and  of  material  blessings;  these,  however,  in  all  forms  of  the 
promise  are  subservient,  while  the  spiritual  element  is  the  all  important 
one.  It  is  an  eternal  promise,  certified  by  God's  seal,  and  secures  salvation 
to  all  the  people  of  God,  and  covers  the  whole  sweep  of  the  church's  exist- 
ence. It  must  always  hold  its  true  place  of  importance  as  God's  Covenant 
of  Salvation  with  Man.  It  may  be  regarded  as  God's  formal  announce- 
ment of  his  eternal  purpose  of  salvation,  and  it  furnishes  a  basis  for  all 
other  gospel  promises.  One  reason  why  this  has  not  been  clearly  appre- 
hended  is,    that    the   word   "covenant"    has    been    misunderstood. 

MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  COVENANT. 

In  order  to  show  that  the  word  "covenant'  offers  no  bar  to  the  above 
interpretation,  let  us  carefully  search  for  the  scriptural  meaning  of  the 
word  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  word  does  not  always  imply  a  reciprocal 
promise  or  a  conditional  promise,  but  it  ordinarily  contains  a  very  dif- 
ferent idea  when  God's  covenant's  with  man  are  spoken  of.  If  this  is 
true,  the  ordinary  definitions  of  the  word  given  by  the  books  will  have  to 
be  modified.     Dr.  Hodge,  for  instance,  defines  a  covenant  as  a  conditional 


COXFESSiOXAL  REJISIOX.  51 

promise,  and  says  the  analysis  of  a  covenant  always  gives  the  following 
elements:  (a)  Its  parties,  (b)  Its  promise,  (c)  Its  conditions,  (d) 
Its  penalty.  See  Hodge  on  the  Coiifessio)i,  p.  169.  Dabney  in  his 
Theology  says,  It  means  covenant  or  agreement,  being  often  used  to 
express  theologically  God's  covenants  with  man,  and  naturally  com- 
pacts between  individuals.  There  are  also  (he  says)  cases  in  which 
it  means  an  arrangement  or  dispensation  of  matters  determined  on. 
Ex.  34:  28;  Jer.  s^:  20."  The  last  statement  properly  applied  gives 
us  pretty  nearly  what  we  need.  A  careful  examination  of  all  the  passages, 
both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  where  the  word  occurs — 
eliminating  such  phrases  as  "blood  of  the  covenant"  and  "ark  of  the 
covenant,"  which  contain  no  variant  usage  of  the  word,  but  only  indicate 
that  these  things  are  connected  with  the  Sinai  covenant — will  show  that 
all  the  instances  of  the  usage  where  a  covenant  of  God  with  men  is  indi- 
cated are  referable  to  three  distinct  transactions,  the  covenant  with  Noah, 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  the  covenant  with  Israel  on  Sinai.  The 
covenant  with  David,  and  the  "new  covenant"  of  Jeremiah  31  are  not 
original  covenants  but  only  reiterations  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
There  appears  to  be  not  a  single  exception  to  this  statement.  The 
cases  cited  by  Dabney  are  only  apparent  not  real  exceptions.  When  in 
Ex.  24 : 8  the  ten  comamndments  are  called  the  "words  of  the  cove- 
nant," this  conforms  to  the  usage.  They  are  words  of  the  cove- 
nant in  that  they  specify  particularly  the  obedience  which  the  covenant 
required.  God's  requirement  "if  ye  will  obey  my  voice"  really  covers 
the  whole  of  the   Mosaic   legislation. 

Jeremiah  ^s  '■  20  is  no  doubt  an  allusion  to  the  covenant  with  Noah  : 
"If  you  can  break  my  covenant  with  the  day,  and  my  covenant  with  the 
night,  so  that  there  shall  not  be  day  and  night  in  their  season :  then 
may  also  my  covenant  be  broken  with  David  my  servant."  We  find  in 
Gen.  8:  22,  the  very  promise  here  referred  to.  It  is  God's  resolution  in 
reference  to  the  establishment  of  the  covenant  with  Noah,  showing  that 
in  it  he  pledged  the  perpetuity  of  the  seasons  and  the  orderly  working  of 
the  laws  of   nature. 

There  is  one  other  passage  which  would  be  regarded  by  some  as 
exceptional,  Hosea  6:  7,  which  has  been  understood  as  a  possible  refer- 
ence to  a  covenant  with  Adam.  This  impression  arises  from  the  indefinite- 
ness  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  "man"  (adam).  It  is  indeclinable,  and 
singular  or  plural  or  proper  name  according  to  the  context.  The  Revi- 
sion translates  it  "Adam,"  but  in  this  case  the  old  version  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred. It  is  little  in  favor  of  the  proper  name  that  it  makes  a  reference 
to  a  supposed  covenant  with  Adam  which  is  nowhere  else  referred  to  in 
the  Scripture.  Gesenius  gives  the  translation  "like  men,"  and  says  it 
means  "common  men,"  or  as  we  should  say  men  of  the  world,  see  Ps. 
17:   14* 


*He  mentions  three  places  where  the  expression  is  used  :  in  two  of  these 
the  Revision  has  adopted  the  translation  "like  Adam."  In  Job  31  :  33, 
following  the  A.  V.,  it  places  "Adam"  in  the  text  and  "after  the  manner 


52  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

Let  us  now  examine  the  several  covenants,  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  for  this  is  the  only  correct  method  of  ascertaining 
the  Biblical  meaning.  It  is  one  of  the  best  established  canons  of  philology, 
that  the  ultimate  decision  as  to  the  meaning  of  any  word  in  any  language 
is  to  be  determined  by  a  careful  inspection  of  all  the  cases  of  its 
usage.  It  is  not  right  to  judge  of  God's  covenants  with  men  by  the 
meaning  of  the  word  as  it  is  used  of  compacts  between  man  and  man, 
but  by  inspecting  the  covenants  themselves.  Our  idea  of  the  word  should 
be  derived  from  the  ascertained  knowledge  of  the  thing,  not  the  thing 
judged  by  a  preconceived  use  of  the  word. 

The  first  transaction  to  which  in  Scripture  the  word  "covenant"  is 
applied  is  the  covenant  with  Noah.  It  stands  as  an  unconditional  promise, 
to  which  an  attesting  sign  is  attached.  (Gen.  g:  ii).  "And  I  will  estab- 
lish my  covenant  with  you;  neither  shall  all  flesh  be  cut  off  any  more  by 
the  waters  of  the  flood:  neither  shall  there  any  more  be  a  flood  to 
destroy  the  earth.  And  God  said,  This  is  the  token  of  the  covenant  which 
I  make  between  me  and  you  and  every  living  creature  that  is  with  you 
for  perpetual  generations  :  I  do  set  my  bow  in  the  cloud  and  it  shall  be 
a  token  of  a  covenant  between  me  and  the  earth."  The  expression  "be- 
tween me  and  the  earth"  includes  not  only  man  but  "every  living  crea- 
ture," and  so  it  secures  the  stability  of  Nature.  God  says:  "While  the 
earth  remaineth  seed  time  and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer  and 
winter,  and  day  and  night  shall  not  cease."  Here  then  is  a  covenant  which 
is  neither  an  agreement,  nor  a  "conditional  promise." 

The  next  covenant  is  with  Abraham.  As  already  seen  the  promises  to 
Abraham  are  really  one,  whether  viewed  as  one  covenant  or  two.  The 
New  Testament  writers  seem  to  use  both  methods  of  expression  indis- 
criminately. Stephen  in  his  speech  in  the  Acts  deals  with  all  these 
promises  as  one.  After  reciting  God's  dealings  with  Abraham  in  chapter 
7:  2-8,  he  embraces  the  whole  under  the  expression,  "the  promise": 
"But  as  the  time  of  the  promise  drew  nigh."  (v.  17.)  In  Eph.  2:  12  Paul 
speaks  of  them  as  "the  covenants  of  the  promise."  This  expresses  just 
what  has  been  above  asserted  concerning  the  promises.  In  one  sense 
there  are  two  covenants,  but  they  are  inseparable  and  practically  one. 
See  this  conception  also  in  Eph.  3 :  6.  "The  Gentiles  are  fellow  heirs, 
and  fellow  members  of  the  body,  fellow  partakers  of  the  promise  in   (or 

of  men"  in  the  margin  ;  l)ut  in  Ps.  82 :  7,  the  translation  "like  Adam"  is  so 
clearly  out  of  place  that  "like  men"  is  retained.  We  think  that  "like  men" 
is  preferable  on  grounds  of  interpretation  in  all  these  passages.  In 
Hosea  the  rendering  "like  Adam"  is  rejected  by  Jamieson,  Fausset  and 
Brown  on  the  ground  that  "the  expression  covenant  is  not  found  else- 
where applied  to  Adam's  relations  to  God,'  though  he  says  the  things 
seems  implied.  An  additional  argument  for  its  rejection  is,  that  it  makes 
an  unnatural  and  forced  connection  with  the  preceding  verse,  which  speaks 
of  the  emptiness  of  [srael's  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law.  They  broke 
that  covenant  in  reality  while  professing  to  carry  out  its  provisions  in 
ritual  observances,  thus  acting  like  common  men,  that  is,  men  of  the 
world. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  53 

by)  Christ  Jesus  through  the  gospel."  Gentiles  were  fellow  partakers  with 
the  Jews  in  the  original  promise,  of  which  Christ  was  the  surety.  It  has 
already  been  seen  that  the  promise  of  chapter  12  is  without  condition, 
and  this  original  declaration  really  covers  the  whole  ground.  If  now 
the  promise  of  chapter  13  be  examined,  it  is  equally  as  absolute:  "For 
all  the  land  which  thou  seest  to  thee  will  I  give  it  and  to  thy  seed  forever. 
And  I  will  make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth :  so  that  if  a  man 
can  number  the  dust  of  the  earth,  then  shall  thy  seed  also  be  numbered." 
The  two  specifications  of  this  promise  are  sealed  in  chapters  15  and  17 
respectively.  In  chapter  15  there  is  no  condition,  there  is  a  simple  declara- 
tion :  "Fear  not,  Abraham,  I  am  thy  shield  and  exceeding  great  reward." 
In  harmony  with  this  introduction  the  promise  itself  is  direct  and  without 
stipulation:  "Look  now  towards  heaven,  and  tell  the  stars  if  thou  be 
able  to  tell  them,  and  he  said  unto  him.  So  shall  thy  seed  be.  And  he 
believed  in  the  Lord  :  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness.  And 
God  said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Lord  that  brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees  to  give  thee  this  land  to  inhereit  it."  The  gift  of  the  land  is 
afterwards  spoken  of  as  a  thing  already  accomplished :  "Unto  thy  seed 
have  T  given  this  land,"  and  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  seal  applied  to 
the  gift.  The  remark  immediately  following  this:  "In  that  day  the 
Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abram,"  seems  to  be  closely  connected  in 
thought  with  the  sealing  transaction,  and  suggests  that  God  means  by 
his   covenant   his   promise   with   his    seal   attached. 

Coming  to  chapter  17,  we  still  find  no  condition.  It  is  too  late  to  intro- 
duce a  stipulation  here,  for  the  promise  has  been  already  three  time  made 
to  Abraham  without  stipulation.  The  command,  "Walk  before  me  and  be 
thou  perfect,"  can  only  be  a  requirement  which  indicates  alike  the  natural 
obligation  to  be  faithful  to  God  as  the  God  of  his  salvation,  and  as  indi- 
cating the  general  character  of  God's  true  people.  The  spiritual  element 
of  the  promise  becomes  more  distinct  in  this  chapter,  and  its  form  is 
equally  absolute  with  those  which  preceded :  "As  for  me,  behold,  my  cove- 
nant is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  the  father  of  a  multitude  of  nations." 
It  seems  fitting  that  the  promise  whicli  established  a  visible  church  should 
also  give  assurance  of  a  local  habitation  to  that  church.  The  idea  of 
eternity  connected  with  this  part  of  the  promise  can  only  refer  to  its 
typical  meaning.  God  promised  to  give  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession,  and  to  be  their  God.  The  close  connection  of  the 
last  clause  shows  the  promise  of  the  land  to  be  a  part  of  the  covenant 
with  the  church,  and  there  must  be  a  spiritual  meaning.  It  secured  the 
possession  of  Canaan  to  the  nation  of  Israel,  but  since  the  promise  to  be 
their  God  applied  to  the  spiritual  Israel  the  "everlasting"  promise  to  the 
same  parties  can  mean  nothing  less  than  a  home  for  the  redeemed,  that 
is,  heaven  itself.  It  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "I  will  give  them  an  everlast- 
ing home,  and  will  be  their  God."  That  the  promise  of  the  land  was 
mainly  intended  as  a  blessing  for  the  true  Israel  may  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  so  large  a  number  of  those  who  went  out  of  Egypt  were 
slain    in    the    wilderness,    being    unworthy    to    inherit    even    the    natural 


54  INFANT  SAW  AT  ION  AND 

blessing.  It  seems  clear  that  the  sign  of  circumcision  must  indirectly 
have  sealed  the  possession  of  the  land,  but  without  having  any  special 
reference  to  natural  blessings,  for  it  was  the  special  seal  of  the  spiritual 
promise.  But  the  external  church  was  to  contain  the  spiritual,  and  it 
must  have  a  sign  or  "token  of  the  covenant,"  which  must  be  carefully  kept. 
"This  is  my  covenant  which  you  shall  keep  between  me  and  you  and 
thy  seed  after  thee,  every  male  of  you  shall  be  circumcised  .  .  .  and 
it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you."  Circumcision 
stood  as  the  reminder  and  pledge  of  God's  absolute  spiritual  promise, 
and  since  the  promise  was  absolute  this  seal  gave  assurance  to  Abraham 
that  he  should  have  a  spiritual  following  of  his  own  real  descendants, 
and  it  secured  the  perpetuity  of  the  true  church  down  to  the  end 
of   time. 

The  next  covenant  to  be  considered  is  that  which  God  made  wiih 
Israel  at  Sinai.  This  is  conditional  in  form ;  it  contains  a  stipulation ; 
and  in  this  respect  it  stands  out  in  striking  contrast  with  the  covenants 
which  have  been  already  examined.  "Now,  therefore,"  saith  Jehovah,  "if 
ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed  and  keep  my  covenant  then  ye  shall  be  a 
peculiar  treasure  unto  me  from  among  all  peoples."  The  condition 
was  explicitly  accepted.  The  people  responded,  "All  the  words  that 
the  Lord  hath  commanded  will  we  do."  (Ex.  9:  8.)  This  first  message 
was  preliminary  to  the  meeting  called  at  Sinai  for  the  third  day.  At 
that  time,  after  all  the  commandments  and  judgments  had  been  delivered, 
the  people  responded,  "All  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken  will  we  do  and  be 
obedient.  "And  Moses  took  the  blood  and  sprinkled  it  on  the  people  and 
said,  Behold,  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  hath  made 
with  you  concerning  all  these  w^ords."  (Ex.  24:  7()  The  sprinkled  blood 
was  a  seal  of  the  promise,  and  as  such  it  was  denominated  "the  blood  of 
the  covenant."  It  stood  for  a  pledge  on  the  part  of  the  people  as  well 
as  of  God. 

Let  us  now  examine  2  Sam.  7:  12-16,  where  the  first  mention  of  the 
covenant  with  David  occurs.  There  seems  to  be  a  parallel  to  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  in  the  promise.  "I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee, 
which  shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,  and  I  will  establish  his  kingdom 
forever."  There  is  no  conditional  promise  here.  God  says  expressly  of 
this  seed,  "If  he  commit  iniquity  I  will  chasten  him  with  the  rod  of 
men  .  .  .  but  my  mercy  shall  not  depart  from  him."  The  promise 
of  the  stability  of  his  kingdom  is  solemnly  repeated:  "And  thy  house 
and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  made  sure  forever  before  thee :  thy  throne 
shall  be  established  forever."  (cf.  i  Sam.  2^:  5.)  Turning  to  Isaiah  9:  2j, 
we  find  that  this  promise  to  David  refers  to  Christ.  "Of  the  increase 
of  his  government  there  shall  be  no  end  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and 
upon  his  kingdom,  to  establish  it  and  uphold  it  with  judgment  and  with 
righteousness  from  henceforth  and  forever."  There  is  no  element  of 
doubt  or  contingency  in   such  a  promise   from  God's  point  of  view. 

In  Jer.  31  :  31  a  new  covenant  with  Israel  is  prophesied.  This  was  a 
promise   of   spiritual   blessing,   specially   contrasted   with   the   covenant   of 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  55 

Sinai  in  regard  to  its  absolute  nature.  (See  v.  32:  ^;i.)  "Thus  saith 
the  Lord  which  giveth  the  sun  for  a  light  by  day,  and  the  ordinance  of 
the  moon  and  the  stars  for  a  light  by  night  .  .  .  the  Lord  (Jehovah) 
of  the  hosts  is  his  name:  if  these  ordinances  depart  from  before  me 
saith  the  Lord,  then  the  seed  of  Israel  also  shall  cease  from  being  a 
nation  before  me  forever."  Thus  it  is  made  parallel  with  the  covenant 
of  Noah  in  its  absolute  certainty.  The  last  two  covenants  have  no  seal 
because  they  are  not  original  covenants,  but  only  reiterations  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,   and  as  such  already  sealed. 

This  completes  the  list,  and  it  is  now  possible  to  construct  a  definition 
of  the  word  covenant.  We  find  that  out  of  five  cases  examined  only 
one  contains  a  stipulation  or  condition.  The  others  are  all  absolute 
promises,  not  "agreements"  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word,  and  have 
nothing  to  do  with  "conditions"  or  "penalties."  All  the  original  cove- 
nants, however,  do  have  a  sign  or  seal  attached,  and  this  should,  no  doubt, 
be  regarded  as  an  essential  feature  of  a  covenant.  It  is  God's  oath  added 
to  the  promise,  and  they  together  constitute  the  covenant.  The  latter 
feature  is  expressed  in  the  words,  "I  sware  to  give"  literally,  "I  lifted  up 
my  hand."  (Ex.  6:  8.)  The  passage  from  which  this  quotation  is  taken 
is  an  extended  and  formal  renewal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  as  a  cove- 
nant with  Israel  as  God's  people,  and  it  prepares  the  way  for  the  Sinai 
covenant  which  follows.  The  covenant  with  the  national  church  on 
mount  Sinai,  while  a  conditional  promise  in  form,  is  so  connected  with 
the  old  covenant  as  to  show  that  it  was  intended  to  carry  out  the  provi- 
sions of  that  covenant.  And  this  is  what  Paul  teaches  in  Galatians.  The 
law  which  came  430  years  afterwards  could  not  disannul  the  promise. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  promise  is  renewed  in  solemn  form  in  Exodus 
6:  2-8.  "I  am  Jehovah"  occurs  four  times  in  the  brief  recital  of  that 
covenant.  He  says,  I  will  take  you  to  me  for  a  people,  and  I  will  be  to 
you  a  God,  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  Jehovah  your  God  who  bringeth 
you  out  from  the  burdens  of  the  Egyptians.  And  I  will  bring  you  into 
the  land  which  I  swear  to  give  to  Abraham."  Here  is  the  promise  com- 
plete, and  mentioned  as  having  been  attested  by  an  oath.  \\'e  find  the 
same  settled  purpose  indicated  in  the  covenant  itself.  The  preface 
reads :  Thus  shalt  thou  say  to  the  house  of  Jacob,  and  tell  the  children 
of  Israel  ye  have  seen  what  I  did  unto  the  Egyptians,  and  how  I  bear 
you  on  eagles'  wings  and  brought  you  unto  myself.  Now  therefore  if 
ye  will  obey  my  voice,"  etc.  From  this  it  appears  that  from  the  first, 
keeping  the  covenant  is  presented  as  an  obligation  to  God,  made  spe- 
cially binding  by  the  fact  that  they  were  his  own  people  whom  he 
redeemed  from  Egyptian  bondage.  There  is  no  voluntary  element  in 
the  sense  that  an  acceptance  of  the  covenant  was  purely  optional  on 
the  part  of  Israel.  The  obligation  existed  anyhow;  the  voluntary  element 
consisted  in  their  willing  acceptance  or  acknowledgment  of  the  obliga- 
tion. 

The  same  ground  of  obedience  is  presented  in  the  preface  to  the 
decalogue    itself:      "I    am    Jehovah    thy    God    which    brought    thee   out    of 


56  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  Jeremiah  puts  the 
matter  in  the  same  Hght,  in  chapter  7  :  22,  23,  God  says :  "For  I  spake  not 
unto  your  fathers  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  I  brought  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings  or  sacrifices;  but  this 
thing  I  command  them,  saying,  Hearken  unto  my  voice,  and  I  will  be 
your  God  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  These  passages  give  us  God's  own 
interpretation  of  his  covenant,  and  leave  nothing  to  be  desired. 

If  the  Sinai  covenant  imposed  an  obligation  which  did  not  depend 
upon  Israel's  will  or  even  await  their  consent,  it  is  plain  that  the  same 
covenant  with  the  same  condition  might  have  been  made  without  their 
consent.  This,  however,  was  not  God's  plan :  it  would  not  have  been  in 
accordance  with  God's  main  purpose  in  giving  the  law.  The  law  was 
intended  to  be  a  discipline  and  an  education  to  Israel,  and  it  was  aimed 
at  securing  a  willing  obedience :  hence  God  purposely  made  their  consent 
to  the  transaction  a  prominent  feature  of  this  covenant,  and  it  became 
a  reciprocal  promise  in  form.  In  this  respect  it  is  a  unique  transaction ; 
but  it  comes  under  the  definition,  being  a  promise  of  God  accompanied  by 
his  attesting  seal.  Compare  this  with  Heb.  6:  13-18.  The  attesting  seal 
was  equivalent  to  God's  oath  given  in  connection  with  the  promise,  and 
such  attestation  naturally  becomes  an  important  part  of  the  covenant. 
A  covenant  of  God  with  men  may  therefore  be  defined  as,  A  solemn 
promise  on  God's  part,  con-:litional  or  unconditional,  which  is  sealed  by  a 
visible  sign.  The  sign  or  token  of  a  covenant  is  necessarily  its  sea!,  and 
the  words  are  used  interchangeably  in  Scripture. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  voluntary  element,  which  is  so  important 
a  feature  of  a  covenant  as  commonly  defined,  has  no  place  in  this  defini- 
tion. It  is,  of  course,  an  important  feature  in  covenants  between  man 
and  man,  but  plays  no  important  part  in  God's  covenants  with  men. 
Only  one  of  the  covenants,  that  of  Sinai  has  this  feature  at  all ;  but  the 
voluntary  element  in  that  is  not  an  essential  feature  as  is  seen  in  such 
passages  as  Josh.  7:  11;  23:  16,  where  God  speaks  of  his  covenant 
as  commanded.  Josh.  2^,:  16  also  threatens  the  anger  of  the  Lord  and 
death  for  disobedience.  Consult  Judges  2:  20;  I  Kings  11  :  11,  where  the 
same  significant  expressions  occur. 

ADDITIONAL  NEW  TESTAMENT   PROOFS. 

Having  once  established  the  fact  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  is 
an  absolute  or  unconditional  spiritual  promise,  its  true  significance  as 
a  promise  of  salvation  to  the  elect  is  readily  accepted.  The  fact  that 
that  covenant  v.'as  in  some  sense  a  promise  of  spiritual  blessings  has 
been  pretty  generally  recognized,  but  the  failure  to  apprehend  its 
absolute  character  has  no  doubt  caused  ecclesiological  writers  to 
overlook  the  fact  that  it  is  a  promise  of  salvation  to  the  true  children 
of  Abraham,  the  spiritual  Israel.  Some  writers  understand  it  as  simply 
marking  one  of  several  stages  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Some  regarrf 
it  as  spoken  to  the  visible  church,   and,  therefore,   as  embracing  nominal 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  57 

professors,  in  a  promise  of  certain  natural  advantages,  which  should 
have  a  tendency  to  lead  to  salvation.  In  order,  therefore,  to  estabUsh 
more  fully  the  true  scope  of  this  covenant,  let  us  bring  to  bear  addi- 
tional   New   Testament   light. 

It  was  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed.  What  seed?  Paul  says 
(Rom.  4:11)  that  Abraham  "received  the  sign  of  circumcision  as  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  while  he  was  in  uncircum- 
cision :  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they 
be  in  uncircumcision,  that  righteousness  might  be  reckoned  unto  them; 
and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  not  only  are  of  the  circum- 
cision, but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abra- 
ham which  he  had  in  uncircumcision."  This  teaches  as  plain  as  language 
can  do  that  the  seed  of  Abraham  referred  to  in  the  promise  are  his 
spiritual  seed.  It  matters  not  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles  (if 
responsible  persons),  they  are  such  as  are  of  the  faith.  He  was  to  be 
the  heir  of  the  world  through  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  as  such  he 
is  the  father  of  us  all— "not  of  those  who  are  of  the  law,  but  of  those 
who  are  of  the  faith  of  Abraham."  (v.  16.) 

Turning  to  Galatians  the  same  result  is  obtained  in  a  different  way. 
"Now  to  Abraham  were  the  promises  spoken,  and  to  his  seed.  He  saith 
not  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many,  but  of  one.  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is 
Christ."  (Gal.  3:  16.)  It  is  evident  that  Paul  means  to  quote  the  exact 
language,  and  the  last  clause  of  Gen.  17:  7  corresponds  to  the  question. 
To  hold  that  Paul  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  presses  the  singular 
here  with  reference  to  Christ,  when  the  word  as  it  stood  in  the  original 
form  was  intended  to  designate  the  natural  children,  is  not  allowable ; 
it  would  seem  clear,  therefore,  that  the  word  must  have  a  double  refer- 
ence, embracing  Christ  and  all  the  people  of  God.  whether  the  reference 
be  to  Christ  considered  as  one  in  the  line  of  the  spiritual  children,  or 
whether  "thy  seed"  designate  the  elect  as  one  body  in  Christ.  This 
reconciles  Paul  in  Galatians  with  Paul  in  Romans,  without  the  necessity 
of  holding  with  Meyer  that  "Paul  adopts  an  interpretation  which  is  a 
feat  of  rabbinical  subtlety."  The  interpretive  clause,  "which  is  Christ," 
may  be  understood  to  mean,  "which  in  the  highest  sense  refers  to  Christ." 
Thus  the  covenant  embraces  all  the  elect  and  no  others.  As  a  promise  of 
salvation  it  embraces  all  the  saved,  it  could  hardly  be  otherwise.  It 
named  no  individuals,  but  God  of  course  knew  what  individuals  were 
embraced  within  its  scope.  Such  a  promise  which  was  "made  sure  to  all 
the  seed  is  necessarily  a  counterpart  of  the  eternal  decree  of  salvation 
which  embraced  all  the  saved.  With  the  exception  of  the  first  promise  of 
Eden,  it  was  the  first  expression  of  the  "eternal  purpose  which  God  pur- 
posed in  Christ  Jesus."  It  embraced  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  Jews, 
as  fellow-heirs  and  fellow-members  of  the  body,  although  this  was  not  at 
first  so  clearly  manifest  as  afterwards. 

Although  a  promise  of  salvation  it  did  not  at  first  appear  so  clearly  that 
it  was  a  promise  to  or  through  a  personal  Savior.  There  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  Abraham  was  able  to  grasp  in  its  fullness  this  hidden  mean- 


58  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

ing  of  the  promise,  it  was  enough  for  him  that  he  could  see  in  it  the 
comprehensive  hlessing  of  God's  reconciled  countenance  and  favorable 
consideration.  It  is  not  likely  that  he  understood  the  full  extent  of  the 
blessing  which  was  promised  to  him,  or  the  full  significance  of  the  promise 
in  reference  to  the  church.  To  affirm  this  would  be  to  hold  that  the  dawn 
of  salvation  in  the  protevangelium  was  speedily  followed  by  a  noonday 
splendor.  But  as  our  first  parents  must  have  understood  that  the  victory 
over  the  tempter  which  was  promised  to  the  seed  of  the  woman  was  a 
victory  over  sin,  and  a  remedy  of  their  fallen  condition,  so  Abraham 
must  have  understood  that  the  promise  of  God  to  be  his  God,  and  the 
assurance  given  in  the  words  "Fear  not"  meant  his  salvation.  This 
is  plainly  asserted  in  Hebrews  ii:  9.  Whether  he  understood  just  what 
the  promise  to  his  seed  meant,  may  well  be  doubted.  He  must  have  known 
that  the  promised  blessing  necessarily  involved  an  upright  walk,  for  God 
had  prefaced  the  promise  with  the  command,  "Walk  before  me  and  be  thou 
perfect,"  but  whether  he  understood  that  the  promise  was  in  the  most 
important  sense  to  his  spiritual  children  only,  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing.  But  after  all  it  matters  not  how  much  of  the  truth  Abraham 
understood,  the  question  for  us  is  not  what  was  Abraham's  conception  of 
the  blessing,  but  what  was  God's  conception  of  his  own  promise,  and  the 
only  way  to  get  this  is  to  bring  to  bear  the  light  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,    which   must   be   allowed   to   settle   this   question. 

Paul  in  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  of  Galatians  draws  such  a 
broad  contrast  between  the  covenant  of  the  law  and  the  covenant  of 
promise  as  should  place  the  significance  and  scope  of  the  latter  beyond 
dispute.  He  asserts  the  perpetual  binding  force  of  the  promise  which 
had  been  "confirmed  by  God"  as  contrasted  with  the  temporary  and 
evanescent  character  of  the  law  covenant;  and  afterwards  under  the 
figure  of  the  bond  woman  and  the  free  contrasts  the  temporal  with  the 
spiritual  character  of  the  same  covenants.  He  argues  the  perpetuity  of 
the  promise  from  its  very  nature  as  a  simple  promise,  as  contrasted 
with  the  reciprocal  character  of  the  law-covenant  on  Sinai.  "The  cove- 
nant (of  promise)  confirmed  beforehand  by  God,  the  law  which  came 
430  years  after,  doth  not  disannul,  so  as  to  make  the  promise  (to  Abra- 
ham) of  none  effect."  (Gal.  3:  17.)  He  then  insists  upon  the  essential 
difference  between  the  two  transactions,  the  giving  of  the  law  and  the 
promise,  the  difference  being  just  that  which  has  been  noted  in  the  study 
of  the  covenants  themselves,  that  the  one  is  an  absolute  promise  of 
spiritual  good,  while  the  other  is  a  reciprocal  promise  hinging  upon  the 
stipulation  of  obedience.  The  latter  was  a  covenant  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  an  agreement  between  two  parties  brought  about  by  the  employ- 
ment of  a  mediator,  l)ut  in  the  other  case  there  was  no  mediator,  indeed 
he  could  have  no  place,  since  there  was  only  one  party  to  be  considered  : 
that  is  to  say,  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  a  free  and  sovereign  grant, 
which  had  no  conditions  attached.  This  is  expressed  in  such  succinct 
language  that  it  has  greatly  mystified  interpreters  and  led  to  a  great 
number  of  attempted  solutions  of  the  elliptical   passage.     Instead  of   the 


CONFESSIOXAL  REVISION.  59 

ordinary  rendering,  "A  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of  one."  (v.  20.)  Let 
us  read  more  literally,  "Now  there  is  no  mediator  of  one";  that  is  to 
say,  there  can  be  no  mediator  where  there  is  only  one  party.  In  the 
nature  of  the  case  no  mediator  could  be  employed  in  a  transaction  such 
as  that  with  Abraham,  in  which  God  gave  a  simple  promise,  absolute  and 
final  in  its  nature,  a  sovereign  grant  of  spiritual  good. 

In  the  fourth  chapter  the  apostle  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  natural 
transition  which  took  place  between  the  law  and  the  gospel.  The  law 
was  intended  to  lead  to  Christ.  Its  office  as  a  covenant,  or  as  a  means 
of  salvation,  was  necessarily  temporary.  The  law  as  a  moral  code, 
could  only  serve  to  show  the  impossibility  of  being  saved  by  law ;  "it 
was  added  because  of  transgression,  till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the 
promise  was  made."  Christ  was  the  end  of  the  law  unto  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believed ;  all  the  types  pointed  to  him  and  in  him  had 
their  fulfilment.  While  thus  the  covenant  or  dispensation  of  the  law 
expired  by  limitation,  the  coming  of  Christ  was  only  the  most  important 
stage  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  Abrahamic  promise.  He  was  the  "seed  to 
whom  the  promise  was  made"  (v.  19),  and  he  was  "made  a  curse  for  us" 
that  even  "upon  the  Gentiles  might  come  the  blessing  of  Abraham  in 
Christ  Jesus."  (Ch.  3:  14.)  Paul  thus  tells  in  so  many  words  that 
Christ  died  in  order  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham. 

Again,  he  teaches  the  spirituality  and  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic 
promise  by  the  contrast  between  the  two  covenants  as  represented  by 
Sarah  and  Hagar,  or  by  their  sons,  Isaac  and  Ishmael.  One  represents 
the  Jerusalem  that  now  is,  while  the  other  stands  for  the  Jerusalem  that 
is  above.  One  beareth  children  unto  bondage,  while  the  children  of  the 
other  are  children  of  the  promise.  The  one  is  a  worldly  church  which 
by  a  spurious  legalism  seeks  salvation ;  the  other  is  the  true  spiritual 
church,  which  by  accepting  Christ  as  Saviour,  and  giving  up  the  beggarly 
elements  that  served  once  to  dimly  foreshadow  him,  has  attained  the  true 
freedom,  and  the  inheritance  of  the  promise.  Says  Paul,  "the  son  of  the 
handmaid  shall  not  inherit  with  the  son  of  the  free  woman."  He  thus 
teaches  that  the  church  of  Christ,  which  proclaims  salvation  by  faith,  is 
the  only  true  representative  of  Abraham.  Those  who  depended  upon  a 
natural  connection  merely,  and  expected  to  be  saved  by  an  adherence  to 
the  Mosaic  law  would  fail.  The  Mosaic  law  could  not  give  salvation  on 
the  principle  of  "Do  and  live"  (Ch.  3:  12)  for  the  simple  reason  that 
it  had  never  been  kept  and  never  could  be.  (Ch.  5:  3.)  It  could  only 
lead  to  bondage.  Paul  teaches  then  in  the  whole  discussion  that  the 
promise  to  Abraham  is  perpetual,  and  applies  in  its  highest  sense  to  the 
true  people  of  God  only.  Nor  can  it  be  justly  claimed  that  this  exposi- 
tion of  the  apostle  is  forced  or  unnatural,  for  it  agrees  perfectly  with 
what  God  stated  in  the  very  beginning  to  be  his  purpose  in  his  dispensa- 
tion to  Abraham.  That  purpose  was  ethical  and  spiritual,  having  for  its 
object  the  training  of  a  godly  seed.  (Gen.  18:  19). 

In   view  of  this  exposition,   the  true  meaning  of   the   additional   clause 


6o  INFAXT  SALTATION  AXD 

of  the  promise  in  Gen.  22:  17  appears,  in  which  God  says:  "And  thy 
seed  shall  possess  the  gates  of  his  enemies."  Placed  as  it  is  between  two 
clauses  which  import  spiritual  blessing,  it  can  mean  nothing  less  than  a 
pledge  of  the  final  triumph  of  the  spiritual  kingdom.  A  parallel  is  seen 
in  Moses'  last  prophecy  (Deut.  33),  in  which  he  says  to  Joseph:  "His 
horns  are  the  horns  of  the  wild  ox:  with  them  he  shall  push  the  peoples 
all  of  them,  even  the  ends  of  the  earth."   (cf.  Isa.  26:  5-9. 

So  also  the  promise  of  the  land  which  was  given  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  for  an  "everlasting  possession"  must  have  had  a  higher  mean- 
ing than  the  possession  of  Canaan. 

VIEWS   OF  THE  WRITERS. 

Before  dismissing  the  covenant,  it  may  be  well  to  note  the  views  of 
several    standard   writers   on   this    subject. 

Kurtz  considered  it  an  indefinite  promise  of  salvation  covering  the 
Old  Testament  period  which  culminated  in  the  incarnation.  It  was  a 
conditional  promise  in  which  Abraham  must  fulfill  his  part  of  the  bargain. 

Oehler  says  the  expression,  "They  shall  bless  themselves  in  Abraham's 
seed"  can  only  mean.  They  shall  wish  for  themselves  the  blessing  of 
revelation  which  Abraham  has,  and  reach  it  through  the  medium  of 
Abraham's  race."  Not  all  the  natural  descendants  are  true  sons  of  Abra- 
ham and  heirs  of  the  promise. 

Mason  and  Calvin  both  held  that  the  promise  applied  to  the  natural 
seed.  Calvin  says  that  in  one  sense  the  covenant  includes  the  elect. 
In  his  commentary  he  explains  "father  of  many  nations"  as  referring  to 
a  spiritual  progeny;  but  under  verse  7,  discussing  the  phrase  "and  thy 
seed  after  thee,"  he  says,  They  are  deceived  who  think  that  his  elect  alone 
are  here  pointed  out;  and  that  all  the  faithful  are  indiscriminately  com- 
prehended, from  whatever  people  according  to  the  flesh  they  are 
descended."  Since  this  is  at  variance  with  the  conclusions  above  reached, 
let  us  follow  Calvin  in  his  reasoning.  He  goes  on  to  say,  "For  on  the 
contrary,  the  Scripture  declares  that  the  race  of  Abraham  by  lineal 
descent  had  been  peculiarly  accepted  by  God.  And  it  is  the  evident 
doctrine  of  Paul  concerning  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  that 
they  are  holy  branches  which  have  proceeded  from  a  holy  root."  (Rom. 
11:  16.)  And  lest  any  one  should  restrict  this  assertion  to  the  shadows 
of  the  law,  or  should  evade  it  by  allegory  he  elsewhere  expressly  declares 
that  Christ  came  to  be  a  minister  of  the  circumcision.  (Rom.  15:  8.) 
Wherefore  nothing  is  more  certain  (he  says  than  that  God  made  his  cove- 
nant with  those  sons  of  Abraham  w'ho  were  naturally  to  be  born  of  him." 
Calvin  realizes  the  apparent  inconsistentency  of  the  two  statements,  so 
he  tries  to  find  a  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  He  says,  "If  any  one  object 
that  this  opinion  by  no  means  agrees  with  the  former,  in  which  we  said 
that  they  are  reckoned  the  children  of  Abraham  who  being  by  faith 
ingrafted  into  his  body  form  one  family;  the  difference  is  easily  reconciled 
by  laying  down  certain  distinct  degrees  of  adoption,  which  may  be  col- 


CONFESSIOXAL  REVISION.  6i 

lected  from  various  passages  of  Scripture.  In  the  beginning,  antece- 
dently to  this  covenant,  the  whole  world  was  one  and  the  same.  But 
as  soon  as  it  was  said,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee," 
the  church  was  separated  from  the  other  nations;  just  as  in  the  creation 
of  the  world  the  light  emerged  out  of  the  darkness.  Then  the  people 
of  Israel  was  received  as  the  flock  of  God  into  their  own  fold;  the  other 
nations  wandered  like  wild  beasts  through  mountains,  woods  and  deserts. 
Since  this  dignity  in  which  the  sons  of  Abraham  excelled  other  nations, 
depended  on  the  word  of  God  alone,  the  gratuitous  adoption  of  God 
belongs  to  them  all  in  common.  For  if  Paul  deprives  the  Gentiles  of 
God  and  eternal  life,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  aliens  from  the  cove- 
nant (Eph.  2:  12),  it  follows  that  all  Israelites  were  of  the  household 
of  the  church,  and  sons  of  God  and  heirs  of  eternal  life." 

There  are  a  number  of  points  in  this  extract  which  call  for  particular 
attention.     Let  us   first  note  that   Calvin   takes  the  promise  as  if  made 
with  individuals.     H-e  tells  us  that  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  God 
made  his  covenant  with  those  sons  of  Abraham  who  were  naturally  10 
be   born   of   him,"    so   that   "the   gratuitous   adoption   of    God   belongs    to 
them  all  in  common."  If  it  refers  to  the  natural  seed  as  such  it  is  a  promise 
to  them  all  individually;  therefore,  one  of  two  things  must  be  true;  either 
it  is  a  promise  of  salvation  to  them  all,  or  it  is  a  promise  simply  of  the 
external  privileges  of  the  church  with  its  conditional  offer  of  salvation. 
If  the  latter,  it  is  deprived  of  its  definite  character,  as  a  promise  of  salva- 
tion;   how  then  can  it  be   said  by  its  terms  to  embrace  the  elect?     If 
this  is  a  promise  to  Christ  of   a  seed,  it  must  be  sure.     The   difficulty 
appears   to   arise    from   giving  a   perfectly   general   promise   a  particular 
application  which  is  not  warranted.    God  does  not  pledge  himself  that  the 
promised  seed  shall  include  all  the  individuals  of  the  Jewish  nation.     But 
does  not  Calvin  mean  to  say  that  all  the  Jews  would  be  saved?    Otherwise 
what   can   he  mean  by  saying  that  as  members  of  the  church  they  are 
all  "sons  of  God  and  heirs  of  eternal  life"?     They  could  hardly  be  said 
to    be    heirs    of    something    they    were    never    to    receive;    besides,    this 
meaning  is   forced  upon  us  by  the   antithesis,   according  to  which  exclu- 
sion from  the  church  means  exclusion  from  salvation.     "If  Paul  (he  says) 
deprives   the    Gentiles   of   God   and   eternal   life   on    the   ground   of   their 
being   aliens    from    the    covenant,    it    follows    that    all    Israelites   were    of 
the  household  of  the  church,  and  sons  of  God  and  heirs  of  eternal  life." 
It  seems  strange  that  so  remarkable  a  conclusion  did  not  serve  to  betray 
the  faultiness  of  the  logic.     If  we  should  grant  that  membership  in  the 
the   visible   church   were   essential   to   salvation,   it   still  would  not   follow 
that   all    members    of   the    church    would   be    saved,    unless    church   mem- 
bership be  a  sure  title  to  salvation,  in  some  such  way  as  Rome  contends 
for,    which    certainly    is    not    Paul's    teaching.      According    to    Paul    we 
become    "sons    of    God    through    faith    in    Jesus    Christ,"    and   they    only 
are  sons  of  God  who  are  led  by  the   Spirit  of  God.    "If  any  man  ha\  c 
not  the   Spirit   of   Christ,   he   is   none   of   his."     Again,    what   right   have 
we  to  conclude   from   Eph.  2:    12  that  lack  of  external   connection   with 


62  I. \ FA. XT  SAU'ATION  AND 

the  covenant  deprives  one  of  salvation?  The  very  first  specirtcation 
of  the  condition  of  the  Ephesians  is  sufficient  to  bear  out  Paul's  con- 
clusion, namely.  "Ye  were  at  that  time  separate  from  Christ."  This 
fully  accounts  for  their  "having  no  hope,"  and  their  "being  without 
God."  Does  any  one  suppose  that  Paul  intends  to  say  that  they  were 
without  Christ  because  they  did  not  belong  to  the  nation  of  Israel?, 
or  to  imply  that  they  would  have  to  pass  through  Judaism  in  order 
to  reach  Christ?  This  is  contrary  to  Paul's  most  positive  teaching. 
"In  Christ  Jesus  he  says  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything  nor  un- 
circumcision,  but  faith  working  through  love."  He  contends  most 
earnestly  against  the  Judaizers.  We  must  conclude  that  Paul  never  in- 
tended to  deprive  the  Gentiles  of  God  and  eternal  life  because  they 
had  no  connection  with  the  Jewish  church ;  on  the  other  hand,  he  teaches 
distinctly:  "If  ye  are  Christs,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  heirs  accord- 
ing  to   the    promise." 

The  next  text  upon  which  Calvin  bases  his  idea  that  the  promise 
to  Abraham  applies  to  Israel  as  such  is  Romans  ii:  i6.  From  this  he 
thinks  that  "it  is  the  evident  doctrine  of  Paul  concerning  the  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham  that  they  are  holy  branches  which  have  pro- 
ceded  from  a  holy  root."  This  is  certainly  an  unfortunate  citation  from 
which  to  argue  a  reference  of  the  covenant  to  the  natural  Israel  as 
such.  It  is  true  that  Paul  says,  "If  the  first  fruit  is  holy  so  is  the 
lump;  and  if  the  root  is  holy  so  are  the  branches,"  but  he  immediately 
goes  on  to  say  that  some  of  the  branches  were  broken  off.  They  were 
broken  off  by  their  unbelief,  that  is  to  say,  they  broke  themselves  off 
by  their  own  refusal  to  believe,  by  which  they  put  themselves  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  root.  On  the  other  hand,  the  branches  that  were  grafted 
in  stood  by  faith  ;  it  is  therefore  certain  that  the  word  holy  is  not  used 
in  a  ceremonial  sense,  and  does  not  apply  to  all  Israel  as  a  race.  The 
natural  branches  were  not  all  holy,  therefore  the  "lump"  which  like  the 
first  fruits  is  holy  does  not  represent  Israel  as  such;  but  an  aggregate 
of  God's  true  people.  Paul  goes  on  to  teach  that  it  was  possible  for 
the  natural  branches  to  be  grafted  in  again,  if  they  continued  not  in 
their  unbelief;  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again.  Nay  more,  this 
will  actually  take  place — they  shall  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive 
tree  (Rom.  ii  :  24),  the  result  being  that  finally  all  Israel  shall  be  saved. 
This  result  is  pledged  in  the  covenant  itself,  for  the  apostle  goes  on  to 
say,  "Even  as  it  is  written,  There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  the  deliverer; 
He  shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob :  And  this  is  my  covenant 
unto  them.  When  I  shall  take  away  their  sins."  In  regard  to  this 
event  the  apostle  adds,  "As  touching  the  election  they  are  beloved  for 
the  fathers'  sake."  What  fathers?  Why  those  to  whom  the  promise 
was  made;  and  the  unavoidable  inference  from  this  is,  that  the  covenant 
was  intended  for  the  elect.  Does  he  not  say  that  the  election  obtain 
the  blessing  of  salvation  by  reason  of  this  covenant  with  the  fathers? 
The  passage  then  tells  strongly  against  those  interpreters  who  taking  the 
holy  root  to  be  the  patriarchs,  make  the  holy  branches   (in  the  language 


COXFESSIOXAL  RlillSlON.  63 

of  Meyer)  to  be  "the  whole  body  of  the  people,  to  whom  the  character 
of   holiness — consecration  in  property  to  God — passed  over." 

The  citation  of  Rom.  15:  8  to  sustain  the  position  that  the  covenant 
embraces  the  natural  Israel,  is  scarcely  more  fortunate.  Christ  was 
made  a  minister  oi  the  circumcision,"  but  for  what  purpose?  "That 
he  might  confirm  the  promises  unto  the  fathers,  and  that  the  Gentiles 
might  glorify  God  for  his  mercy."  Perhaps  the  most  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  these  words  is  to  take  the  latter  clause  as  a  specially  mentioned 
result  of  the  confirmation  of  the  promises.  All  the  succeeding  quotations 
refer  to  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  God  in  the 
salvation  of  the  Gentiles  is  certainly  one  of  the  purposes  for  which 
Christ  came.  But  his  mission  was  first  of  all  to  the  Jews,  as  he  himself 
explains,  and  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  provisions  of  the  covenant 
to  them.  It  was  "for  the  truth  of  God"  in  the  sense  of  demonstrating  the 
truth  of  the  covenant  promise  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles;  and  since  the 
result  of  this  "confirming  of  the  promises"  was  salvation  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, the  result  as  regards  the  Jews  must  have  been  the  same,  rather 
than  the  carrying  out  of  any  lower  and  merely  subordinate  purpose. 
But  we  could  no  more  conclude  from  this  that  all  the  "circumcision" 
would  be  saved  than  that  all  the  Gentiles  should  be  saved.  He  is 
not  speaking  of  individuals  but  of  classes.  The  passage  goes  to  show 
clearly  that  the  Gentiles  were  included  in  the  true  purport  of  the  covenant. 

Again,  Matt.  8:  12  is  cited  as  showing  that  "they  who  were  unbelievers 
among  the  Jews  are  yet  called  the  children  of  the  celestial  kingdom." 
Nay,  not  the  children  of  the  celestial  kingdom,  but  of  the  earthly  king- 
dom, the  church.  How  could  they  be  of  the  celestial  kingdom,  and 
at  the  same  time  "cast  out?"  "He  came  unto  his  own  (says  John)  and 
they  that  were  his  own  received  him  not.  But  as  many  as  received 
him  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name."  According  to  John  therefore  only 
those  who  believe  have  a  right  to  claim  a  heritage  in  the  celestial  kingdom. 
There  can  be  no  degrees  of  adoption  or  sonship,  nor  of  any  reconcilia- 
tion on  such  a  theory  of  the  two  entirely  distinct  and  irreconcilable 
views  of  the  covenant.  It  is  true  that  God  does  in  Ex.  4:  22  speak  of 
Israel  as  "my  son  my  first  born;"  but  this  is  applicable  only  to  the 
people  as  a  whole,  and  because  Israel  at  that  time  represented  the  true 
church ;  it  gives  no  warrant  for  the  indiscriminate  application  of  the 
term  to  Jews.  David  seems  to  have  understood  this.  His  last  words 
contain  a  prophecy  of  the  Righteous  One,  together  with  what  is  no 
doubt  a  description  of  his  kingdom,  "which  he  ruleth  in  righteousness." 
The  description  applies  only  to  the  righteous.  It  is  "as  the  light  of  the 
morning  when  the  sun  riseth,  a  morning  without  clouds."  As  "the  ten- 
der grass  springing  out  of  the  earth.*  Just  after  this  description  he  says, 
"Verily  my  house  is  not  so  with  God."  Nevertheless  the  covenant  itself 
is    "an    everlasting   covenant,    ordered   in    all    things   and   sure."     It   is   a 


*See  the  first  figure  in  Prov.  4:   18;  on  the  second,  consult;  Ps.  37:  2, 
Ps.  102:  4;  Isa.  -|0:  24;  Jer.  12:  4. 


64  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

covenant  of  salvation,  for  he  says,  "It  is  all  my  salvation  and  all  my 
desire."  It  is  easy  to  see  then  how  David  himself  understood  that  it 
did  not  apply  to  his  house  in  the  natural  sense.  It  referred  to  a  kingdom 
from  which  the  ungodly  are  necessarily  excluded.  (2  Sam.,  Ch.  7.)  The 
covenant  with  David  was  only  a  renewal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
just  as  the  covenant  was  repeated  to  Isaac  and  Jacob.  The  covenant 
with  David  therefore  required  no  seal  because  of  this  identity.  The 
identity  becomes  apparent  when  we  see  that  they  were  both  spiritual, 
eternal,  and  having  reference  alike  to  the  great  plan  oi  salvation.  The 
covenant  with  David  regards  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
kingdom,  which  should  be  a  final,  glorious,  eternal  success.  That  spiritual 
kingdom  is  the  church,  which  must  therefore  be  traced  back  to  Abra- 
ham— to   the   original   spiritual,   eternal   covenant. 

The  patriarchal  age  should  receive  a  better  recognition  by  ecclesiolog- 
ists  than  it  has  at  the  hands  of  those  who  place  the  origin  of  the  church 
in  the  Mosaic  economy,  as  is  done  by  such  eminent  writers  as  Kurtz  and 
Oehler,  who  recognize  in  the  patriarchal  age  a  sort  of  indefinable  germ 
of  the  church;  and  by  S.  J.  Baird,  who  poetically  refers  to  the  patriarchal 
age  as  a  "betrothal,"  while  the  marriage,  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
took  place  at  the  giving  of  the  Sinai  covenant.  The  generally  accepted 
view  in  our  church  is  that  of  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason,  and  Dr.  Stuart  Robinson 
which  gives  the  church  its  true  starting  point  in  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  but  interprets  that  covenant  as  having  reference  to  Israel  as  a 
people.  This  view  appears  to  be  an  acceptance  of  fhe  second  of 
Calvin's  inconsistent  interpretations,  while  eliminating  the  first.  The 
foregoing  discussion,  which  grows  out  of  an  interpretation  original  with 
the  author,  and  entirely  independent  of  Calvin,  goes  to  show  that  Cal- 
vin was  correct  in  his  first  statement  of  the  covenants  scope;  and  we 
must  eliminate  the  second  of  the  inconsistent  views,  and  seek  a  different 
answer  to  the  question,  How  did  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  consti- 
tute the  church?  How  is  it  that  the  great  promise  of  salvation  which 
embraces  the  invisible  church  comes  to  be  the  charter  of  the  church 
visible? 

FALSE    ISSUES    AND    INCONSISTENT    REASONING. 

The  reason  why  so  little  progress  has  been  made  in  the  discussion  of 
infant  salvation  seems  to  be  on  account  of  the  false  issues  raised  and 
the  inconsistent  reasoning  put  forth.  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  dis- 
cuss infant  election  as  if  this  were  an  identical  question  with  that  of 
infant  salvation  instead  of  a  mere  inference  from  the  established  fact 
of  infant  salvation.  Of  course  there  is  no  light  to  be  shed  directly  upon 
infant  election.  The  most  pretentious  work  which  has  appeared  in  our 
church  on  this  subject,  entitled  the  Theology  of  Infant  Salvation  (R.  A. 
Webb,  D.  D.)  begins  the  discussion  with  a  definition  of  infants  which 
is  inconsistent  with  his  statement  and  discussion  of  the  Calvinistic 
position.      The    author    quotes   with    approval    a    definition    of    Dr.    S.    S. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  65 

Laws  which  defines  infants  as  irresponsible  persons.  "Who  are  infants? 
(tie  asks.)  Legally  they  are  minors  or  those  who  cannot  speak  in  court 
for  themselves.  Morally  and  religiously  infants  must  include  all  chil- 
dren prior  to  the  age  of  responsibility  for  wrong  doing."  But  why 
discuss  infant  salvation  at  all  if  it  be  decided  beforehand  that  infant! 
are  irresponsihk,  and  so  not  amenable  to  punishment  for  sin?  This 
idea  of  irrespon.-ibility  does  not  comport  at  all  with  the  explained  Cal- 
vinistic  position  which  first  holds  infants  guilty  on  account  of  Adam's  sin 
iin.i  then  depraved  or   subjectively  sinful. 

But  we  have  shown  the  covenant  of  works  with  its  immediate  impu- 
tation to  be  a  theological  blunder,  which  leaves  only  the  corruption  of 
nature  to  be  accounted  for;  and  if  they  are  not  responsible  for  this, 
in  the  sense  of  being  guilty,  then  they  are  not  punishable  at  all.  But 
this  raises  the  question,  How  can  depravity  fail  to  render  a  person 
guilty?  Too  much  time  has  been  spent  in  trying  to  establish  the  fact 
that  infants  are  guilty,  as  if  the  remedy  for  their  condition  could  be 
determined  by  the  natural  condition  itself.  Paul  tells  us  that  that  con- 
dition is  one  of  death.  Is  it  logical  to  argue  that  a  very  large  portion 
of  those  called  to  account  as  infants  are  condemned  finally  and  eternally 
because  they  share  the  common  condition  of  death  which  came  upon  the 
race?     Then  w^hy  discuss  extraneous  issues? 

Dr.  Webb  starts  out  by  giving  up  his  case ;  for  in  connection  with 
the  summing  up  of  the  available  scriptural  data  on  the  subject  he  makes 
the  damaging  admission  that  "not  a  single  text  explicitly  and  dogmatically 
tells  us  what  is  the  fate  of  infants  dying  in  infancy."  (P.  11.)  The 
Scripture  he  thinks  gives  us  at  best  only  "suggestion,  hint,  hope" ;  but 
we  are  at  last  thrown  back  upon  theology,  and  compelled  to  settle  the 
matter  by  inference."  It  may  be  asked,  Why  should  theology  claim 
any  superior  wisdom  in  the  matter?  Do  the  theologians  claim  a  monop- 
oly upon  reason  and  inference?  Is  not  theology  itself,  if  it  is  worth 
anything,  dependent  upon  the  Scriptures?  The  fact  is  that  theology 
thus  makes  an  impertinent  claim ;  and  by  such  attitude  becomes  a  dis- 
turbing element  in  the  discussion.  If  Dr.  Webb  be  a  specimen  of  theol- 
ogy, and  its  part,  we  may  say  that  it  has  drawn  false  deductions  from 
incorrect  interpretations  of  Scripture;  and  it  winds  the  matter  up  by 
handing  out  to  us  a  worthless  piece  of  philosophy  as  the  solution  of 
the  question.  I<"or  instance,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  on  Scrip- 
ture data  the  author  reasons  that  "infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved 
by  grace  because  they  are  incompetent  to  stand  the  only  sort  of  judg- 
ment which  is  revealed  in  Scripture — a  judgment  according  to  works. 
Just  below  after  quoting  2  Cor.  5:  10,  he  says:  "But  the  infant  dies 
before  it  can  be  a  doer  of  either  good  or  bad,  and  so  cannot  be  arraigned 
upon  the  ground  of  its  personal  deeds.  This  is  a  remarkable  piece  of 
logic  for  any  one  to  use  who  holds  to  the  doctrine  that  these  same 
infants,  who  are  not  responsible  for  their  own  acts,  are  held  responsi- 
ble for  something  which  was  not  their  personal  act  at  all.  Is  it  any 
wonder    that    the    anti-revisionist    balks    at    such    reasoning?      Perceiving 


66  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

the  worthlessness  of  the  gratuitous  philosophy  which  is  offered  him  as 
the  ground  of  his  faith  he  recurs  to  the  hrst  admission  that  the  Scrip- 
ture is  silent  upon  the  subject,  and  parades  it  as  an  unanswerable  argu- 
ment. But  is  it  a  fact  that  the  Scripture  has  nothing  to  say  upon  the 
salvation  of  infants  in  general?  We  do  not  admit  it,  and  do  not  believe 
it.  The  statement  that  the  infant  cannot  be  arraigned  on  the  ground 
of  its  personal  deeds  is  a  false  inference  based  upon  a  mistaken  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  It  misinterprets  the  passage  in  Corinthians  and 
its  allied  passages  by  making  them  teach  a  scheme  of  justification  by 
works  which  is  entirely  foreign  to  their  meaning  and  contradictory  of 
the  gospel  plan  of  salvation.  It  is  false  logic  because  the  converse  of  a 
proposition  does  not  necessarily  hold  good.  This  is  the  reasoning: 
Men  are  judged  according  to  their  works,  infants  have  no  works,  there- 
fore infants  are  not  judged.  The  proposition  that  men  are  judged 
according  to  works  was  never  intended  to  apply  literally  to  those  who 
have  no  works,  for  it  has  reference  to  the  measure  of  reward  and  not 
to  the  ground  of  judgment.  All  the  passages  concerning  judgment 
according  to  works  simply  teach  that  men  are  to  be  counted  either  right- 
eous or  wicked  in  accordance  with  the  actual  fact  of  their  characters 
as  evinced  by  their  works.  If  infants  then  have  characters  or  in  other 
words,  moral  status,  how  can  such  passages  exempt  them  from  all 
judgment.     The  passages   are  simply  misinterpreted,  that  is   all. 

But  you  do  not  have  to  show  that  infants  are  guiltless  in  order  to 
prove  that  they  are  saved,  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  adults,  for 
they  are  both  alike  saved  by  God's  grace  in  Christ.  The  real  question 
to  be  discussed  is  a  question  of  fact,  or  the  Scripture  testimony  to  the 
fact — Are  dying  infants  all  saved — justified  in  Christ  and  saved  by  the 
Spirit  in  regeneration?  Upon  this  question  of  fact  the  Theology  of 
Infant  Salvation  offers  us  only  a  worthless  piece  of  philosophy:  "An 
infant  being  a  sentient  creature  is  capable  of  suffering;  but  being  an 
unconscious  creature,  with  faculties  too  immature  to  understand  and 
appreciate  the  reason  for  suffering  it  is  incapable  of  being  punished 
strictly  .  .  .  speaking."  (P.  288.)  This  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
infant  to  appreciate  his  sin  and  the  reason  for  its  punishment  "would  leave 
(God's)  justice  unsatisfied,  and  defeat  the  very  purpose  of  the  divine 
being  in  sending  any  person  to  hell."  (P.  296.)  And  so  we  are  left 
to  draw  our  own  conclusion  that  God  will  not  do  so  unreasonable  a  thing 
as  to  punish  infants  in  these  circumstances,  this  inference  being  literally 
stated  at  the  bottom  of  P.  290  as  follows:  Hence  ^the  child  which  on 
account  of  its  guilt  is  punishable  de  jure,  is  not  as  such  punishable  de 
facto."  The  latter  must  mean  simply  that  guilt  will  not  eventuate  in 
execution.  Is  this  salvation?  It  is  reasoning  intended  to  satisfy  a 
mind  bound  up  in  legalism.  Is  it  not  as  easy  to  argue  the  salvation  of 
infants  from  what  we  know  of  God's  love  as  shown  in  his  glorious  plan 
of  salvation,  as  to  argue  it  simply  from  his  justice  or  his  purpose  con- 
cerning justice? 

It  seems  to  be  but  a  poor  philosophy  which  bases  a  belief  in  the   sal- 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  67 

vation  of  infants  in  the  fact  that  they  would  not  be  able  to  appreciate 
the  meaning  of  the  punishment  which  is  really  their  due.  This  is  a 
kind  of  inability  that  not  many  have  thought  of.  This  unusual  con- 
sideration is  based  upon  the  philosophical  dictum  that  "Penal  suffering, 
to  be  strictly  penalty,  must  be  recognized  as  such  in  the  consciousness  of 
the  sufferer,  else  it  would  be  to  him  unmeaning  and  causeless  pain." 
(P.  288.)  This  proposition  is  one  which  needs  to  be  proved  before  being 
made  the  basis  of  such  important  theological  consequences.  Who  can 
prove  that  "the  element  of  awareness  is  an  essential  ingredient  in 
rational  punishment?"  Is  it  not  true  that  nature's  laws  are  self  executing 
and  inexorable,  depending  not  upon  the  victim's  knowledge  of  those  laws? 
The  most  ignorant  are  in  fact  most  liable  to  incur  the  consequences  of 
their  breach.  Fire  will  burn  if  a  man  does  not  understand  its  nature 
just  as  surely   as  if  he  knew  but  defied  the  law  of  combustion. 

We  think  the  whole  trouble  comes  from  regarding  sin  simply  in  a  legal 
aspect  as  a  breach  of  law,  and  its  consequence  as  penalty  for  such 
breach.  Only  in  such  view  of  the  matter  is  a  prenatal  guilt  thinkable. 
This  is  Dr.  Webb's  conception  of  the  child's  condition.  See  Page  2J2. 
He  understands  Calvinism  to  assert  "an  antenatal  forfeiture  of  innocence 
and  righteousness."  "Because  of  this  prenatal  connection,  whether 
federal  or  real,  every  child  is  born  at  once  guilty  and  depraved;  and 
therefore  condemned;  and  therefore  by  nature  destined  to  eternal  death. 
The  moral  status  of  every  child  of  Adam  is  that  of  a  guilty,  depraved, 
condemed  thing,  amenable  to  an  eternal  doom."  These  expressions  betray 
a  one-sided  view  of  sin  and  death.  Paul  does  not  talk  in  this  way. 
Death  was  bad  enough  for  him.  It  was  death  that  "passed  through  vmto 
all  men"  and  not  directly  condemnation,  although  this  came  from  the 
one  trespass,  (v.  16.)  It  was  death  that  reigned  over  those  that  had  not 
sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression,  and  not  "condemna- 
tion" or  "eternal  doom."  How  could  these  be  said  to  reign  in  view 
of  a  provided  salvation?  A  way  of  life  being  provided  it  is  no  longer 
legitimate  to  identify  condemnation  and  eternal  doom  with  guilt.  Guilt 
is  a  term  which  describes  a  moral  status,  but  condemnation  and  eternal 
doom  are  terms  of  forensic  import  and  imply  final  judgment;  but  some 
Calvinists  insist  on  judging  the  world  before  God  himself  is  ready  for 
it.  We  need  not  be  alarmed  by  this  hasty  judging  and  confusion  of 
things  that  differ.  Paul  reassures  us  when  he  asks.  Who  is  he  that  con- 
demneth?  It  is  God  that  justifieth.  God  finds  a  way  of  taking  care  of 
the  little  ones,  and  man's  condemnation  cannot  hurt  them.  We  dislike  the 
phrase  "decree  of  nature"  and  "damnable  and  damnability"  used  in  this 
same  connection  because  they  are  the  expression  of  this  confusion. 

It  is  unjust  to  call  this  Calvinism.  Dabney  repudiated  the  applica- 
tion of  the  word  to  such  views,  denying  that  the  Reformed  divines  held 
the  extreme  views  thus  advocated. 

Calvin  himself  has  been  unjustly  charged  in  our  church  with  teaching 
infant  damnation,  with  only  the  result  of  making  Calvin  contradict  him- 
self, because  he  is  made  to  teach  also  universal  infant  salvation.     Both 


68  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

statements  are  unjustifiable,  for  Calvin  did  neither.  The  first  probably 
grows  out  of  the  use  of  the  word  "condemnation"  in  connection  with  the 
subject  of  original  sin,  the  Latin  word  being  improperly  translated 
"damnation."  Calvin  does  not  discuss  the  status  of  infants  outside  of 
the  church,  and  it  is  not  right  to  stretch  his  expressions  in  one  or  two 
places  beyond  the  limits  of  the  subject  he  has  in  hand.  The  reference 
to  "some  of  them  whom  death  removes,"  etc.,  in  section  19,  Ch.  16,  must 
be  understood  as  thus  limited.  Calvin  is  less  objectionable  in  his  state- 
,ments  than  some  of  his  modern  interpreters.  He  is  right  when  he 
remarks  by  way  of  concession  that  "all  the  descendants  of  Adam,  being 
carnal,  bring  their  condemnation  into  the  world  with  them;"  and  still  he 
denies  that  this  is  any  impediment  to  the  communication  of  a  remedy, 
as  soon  as  ever  God  is  pleased  to  impart  it.  If  they  brought  their 
condemnation  into  the  world  with  them  it  certainly  could  not  have  been 
"prenatal."  Nor  does  Calvin  adopt  the  Arminian  device  of  freeing 
infants  as  such  from  the  condemnation  of  original  sin,  nor  free  them  from 
personal  sin  on  the  score  of  "irresponsibility."  The  age  of  responsibility 
properly  means  something  very  different.  It  means  that  God  will  make 
allowance  for  immature  faculties  and  will  not  hold  infants  to  the  respon- 
sibilities of  grown  people.  They  are  saved  like  every  other  sinner  from 
the  death  of  sin  by  the  application  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  which  is  the  newly  implanted  life,  which  makes  them 
sons  of  God. 

Calvin  denied  in  express  terms  that  he  taught  that  God  "condemned 
and  reprobated  impious  men  before  they  exist,  even  before  they  are 
impious  and  have  sinned."  That  was  what  Castalio  charged.  But  per- 
ceiving that  Castalio  disbelieved  in  responsibility  for  original  sin  Calvin 
makes  the  same  argument  that  Paul  employs  in  Rom.  5.  In  Castalio's 
view  it  was  unjust  to  involve  the  whole  race  of  Adam  in  the  "guilt  of 
original  sin."  You  deny,  he  says,  that  it  is  right  for  God  to  condemn 
any  mortal  except  on  account  of  actual  sin,"  "Countless  mortals  are  taken 
from  life  while  yet  infants.  Now  put  forth  your  virulence  against  God 
who  hurls  innocent  new-born  babes,  torn  from  their  mother's  breast  into 
eternal  death."  It  seems  evident  that  Calvin  turns  against  Castalio  some 
of  his  own  language  employed  against  the  true  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
and  that  this  is  only  an  argument  ad  hominem,  and  is  not  intended  to 
assert  the  eternal  death  in  reality  of  any  infants.  The  subject  in  dispute 
was  original  sin.  This  Calvin  taught  and  Castalio  denied.  Since  Castalio 
with  the  Pelagians  must  have  denied  that  death  is  a  penal  infliction,  this 
part  of  his  charge  against  Calvin  was  an  argument  ad  hominem.  But 
Calvin  after  showing  that  his  views  are  not  merely  personal  opinion, 
but  Scripture  teaching,  sends  back  the  same  language,  charging  that  it  i.s 
spoken  against  God,  and  not  man  at  all.  Calvin  has  been  misunderstood 
by  Dr.  Stagg  ("Universal  Salvation  of  Infants,'  p.  100),  and  made  to 
teach  infant  damnation  as  follows:  "We  interpret  this  passage  as  follows: 
If  one  denies  that  God  condemns  any  mortal  except  for  actual  sin,  he 
involves   himself   in   the   dilemma   of   either   charging   God   'with   hurling 


COXFESSIOXAL  REVISION.  69 

innocent  new  born  babes  .  .  .  into  eternal  death  since  countless  mortals 
are  taken  from  this  life  while  yet  infants.'  Or  else  he  must  deny  con- 
demnation for  original  sin,  since  infants  have  no  actual  sin,  and  declare 
all  infants  born  in  a  state  of  innocency."  Let  it  be  noticed  that  Calvin 
is  here  made  to  reason  from  the  eternal  death  of  infants  as  a  fact,  and 
the  only  point  which  he  is  supposed  to  cover  is  the  justice  of  it.  The 
latter  part  of  the  so-called  dilemma  is  equally  remarkable.  To  say  that 
Castalio  "must  deny  condemnation  for  original  sin"  assumes  that  Calvin 
holds  the  opposite  that  "infants  have  no  actual  sin,"  when  he  is  trying  to 
show  just  the  reverse  that  as  guilty  they  have  "actual  sin"  in  a  true  sense. 
But  he  does  not  say  that  they  are  really  "hurled  into  eternal  death."  The 
turn  which  Calvin  gives  to  the  phrase  "actual  sin"  is  entirely  missed, 
and  his  use  of  the  words  of  his  opponent.  The  whole  is,  we  take  it,  an 
unfortunate  misunderstanding  which  adds  to  the  difficulty  of  this  discus- 
sion instead  of  contributing  anything  to  its  solution. 

DR.  S.  S.  LAWS  ON   INFANT   SALVATION. 

Dr.  Laws'  booklet  of  seventy-seven  pages  makes  the  latest  argument 
in  our  church  on  this  subject,  although,  as  we  have  seen,  one  quotation 
from  him  is  made  in  Dr.  Webb's  book.  Dr.  Laws  depends  mainly  upon 
the  classic  passages  in  Matt.  18,  and  19,  claiming  that  he  makes  a  some- 
what different  use  of  them  from  Calvin.  But  after  quoting  Calvin  at 
length  and  commending  his  exposition,  he  says  that  as  regards  his  own 
argument :  "Any  special  virtue"  in  it  "rises  from  a  recognition  and 
due  appreciation  of  the  relation  of  the  fourteenth  verse  of  Matthew 
18  to  the  previous  discoursing  about  infants."  This  is  hardly  worth 
the  claim  since  it  needs  no  explanation  to  point  out  the  connection. 
He  adopts  Calvin's  error  in  making  a  close  connection  between  the  two 
passages,  and  fails  to  see  Calvin's  mistaken  interpretation  of  the  phrase 
"kingdom  of  heaven."  Only  when  the  phrase  is  understood  of  heaven 
itself,  the  kingdom  of  glory,  does  the  force  of  the  passage  in  connection 
with  infant  salvation  appear,  and  yet  none  of  the  writers  has  explained 
this  matter  properly,  although  Rev.  H.  B.  Pratt  does  say  that  the  passage 
has  no  bearing  on  infant  baptism.  But  if  the  phrase  be  interpreted  lo 
mean  heaven  itself  instead  of  a  present  salvation  in  the  visible  church, 
this  seems  to  exclude  the  reference  to  the  grown  people  of  childlike 
spirit.  This  is  without  warrant  read  into  the  passage  from  Matt.  18, 
for  "Of  such"  must  mean  children  as  children  without  any  direct  mention 
of  their  spirit  as  the  reason  for  the  saying.  Dr.  Laws  is  right  in  stating 
that  "Calvin  nowhere  explicitly  recognizes  the  universal  salvation  of 
those  dying  in  infancy."  Having  applied  the  passage  to  infant  baptism, 
it  is  clear  that  he  had  in  mind  only  the  children  of  the  church  who  had 
the  right  by  covenant  standing  to  baptism.  Only  to  this  extent  can 
there  be  an  argument  made  from  infant  salvation  to  infant  baptism.  If 
we  could  grant  that  Calvin's  interpretation  of  the  phrase  "kingdom  ,of 
heaven"  was  correct,  and  his  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  cove- 


70  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

nant  relation  sound,  then  we  should  have  to  grant  his  argument  to  infant 
baptism  valid ;  but  since  neither  can  be  granted,  this  particular  passage 
must  be  given  up  as  a  support  to  infant  baptism.  But  it  is  of  far 
more  importance  to  understand  it  as  bearing  directly  upon  infant  sal- 
vation ;  and  because  we  are  not  warranted  from  the  circumstances  to 
limit  the  passage  to  the  children  of  the  church,  it  must  necessarily 
embrace  all  who  are  taken  away  from  this  world  as  infants.  Dr.  Laws 
seems  to  be  wrong  therefore  in  saying  that  Calvin  "builded  better  than 
he  knew,"  and  "should  have  the  benefit  of  his  inconsistency."  An  incon- 
sistent exposition  is  not  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  and  until  this  is 
recognized  and  Calvin  ceases  to  be  quoted  on  this  subject  we  shall  not 
get  any  very  clear  ideas  on  infant  salvation;   from  this  passage  at  least. 

Dr.  Laws  draws  an  argument  from  the  case  of  David's  child  without 
touching  upon  the  fact  that  it  must  have  been  in  a  sense  at  least  a  child 
of  the  covenant.  The  anti-revisionists  have  already  tried  to  offset  the 
value  of  this  passage  by  pointing  out  this  fact.  This  by  the  way  spoils 
also  the  application  of  the  "Jevons  canon."    P.  45. 

He  makes  the  same  mistake  made  by  the  last  writer  on  the  matter  of 
judgment  according  to  works;  but  seeks  to  offset  the  effects  of  this  rule 
by  saying:  "There  emerges  a  distinction  between  the  primal  judgment 
on  our  race  for  disobedience  and  the  final  judgment."  And  the  require- 
ment, "This  is  the  work  of  God  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent,"  is  one  which  is  not  applicable  to  infants.    P.  -l6. 

And  yet  the  exemption  of  infants  from  condemnation  is  rightly 
explained  to  be  "not  due  to  the  absence  of  sinful  works  or  practices  sucli 
as  lie  to  the  charge  of  adults."  If  this  is  true,  they  are  under  what 
he  calls  "primal  condemnation,"  that  is,  are  guilty  by  reason  of  their  own 
condition;  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  seek  to  strengthen  this  condemna- 
tion by  asserting  that  "they  are  to  blame  for  the  individual  act  of  trans- 
gression done  by  Adam  himself  in  the  garden  of  Eden."  If  relieved  of 
this  part  of  the  indictment,  still  they  need  to  be  saved  by  the  application 
of  the  atonement  and  the  regeneration  of  the  Spirit. 

But  although  Dr.  Laws'  treatment  of  the  subject  may  not  seem  to  be 
unexceptionable,  still  it  is  directed  to  the  real  issue,  and  in  support  of 
the  truth,  and  is  perhaps  the  best  that  has  yet  appeared.  We  can  agree 
to  the  opinion  that  "the  Bible  facts  and  teaching  .  .  .  warrant  us  in 
entertaining  a  comfortable  faith  in  the  universal  salvation  of  infants 
dying  in  infancy,"  by  which  he  doubtless  means  all  such.  If  it  is 
true  as  estimated  that  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  human  race  die 
in  infancy,  it  is  plain  that  "the  citizenship  of  heaven  will  consist  chiefly 
of  those  redeemed  from  the  ranks  of  infancy  and  not  of  believing 
adults." 

This  last  fact  is  employed  by  a  recent  writer  as  the  basis  of  a  ne^v 
scheme   of   prophetic  interpretation. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  71 

REV.  H.  B.  PRATT  ON  INFANT  SALVATION. 

Seeing  a  few  days  ago  the  notice  of  a  new  book  entitled  "The  Buried 
Nations  of  the  Infant  Dead"  the  writer  at  once  ordered  it  in  the  hope 
of  finding  something  new  upon  the  discussion  of  infant  salvation.  We 
were  disappointed  to  find  that  with  such  an  universal  call  for  the  proof 
of  the  infant  proposition  he  adduces  only  the  passage  in  Matt.  19:  14 
and  Calvin's  interpretation.  The  only  difference  seems  to  be  the  expres- 
sion of  opinion,  with  which  we  heartily  agree,  that  "the  words  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  ordinance  of  baptism."  P.  13.  But  this  must 
rest  upon  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  passage,  and  not  upon  the 
reasons  given  in  this  connection,  both  of  which  are  unsound.  To  say  that 
"Christian  baptism  was  not  then  instituted,"  by  which  he  means  that  it 
was  not  yet  in  existence,  is  not  true  except  in  a  very  modified  sense,  since 
infant  baptism  was  a  Levitical  institution,  the  law  for  it  being  contained 
in   Lev.   12. 

The  second  point,  which  is,  that  we  confine  the  ordinance  to  the 
children  of  the  church,  is  beside  the  mark  as  proving  that  the  passage 
in  Matt.   19  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

When  by  way  of  comment  on  the  passage  he  says,  "It  is  more  cus- 
tomary to  understand  the  words  as  teaching  that  a  childlike  character 
and  disposition  are  necessary  to  enter  heaven"  we  are  prepared  for  a 
rejection  of  that  interpretation.  But  no,  he  simply  asks:  Btit  is  that  all, 
or  the  half  of  what  our  Master  intended  to  teach  by  these  precious 
words?  The  implication  in  this  sentence  (P.  14)  shows  that  the  first 
sentence  is  not  accurate,  for  what  interpreter  ever  contended  that  adults 
were  exclusively  referred  to?  Since  Dr.  Pratt  does  not  hold  that  infants 
are  exclusively  referred  to,  we  cannot  see  that  he  differs  from  Calvin 
and  other   interpreters. 

Under  the  heading  "Calvin  and  Dying  Infants"  his  attempted  defence 
of  Calvin  and  Calvinism  against  the  charge  of  teaching  infant  damnation 
is  hardly  more  successful  than  his  interpretation  of  Matt.  19.  Although 
he  has  already  called  attention  to  the  fact,  and  drawn  an  argument 
from  it  against  Calvin,  that  we  do  not  give  baptism  to  any  but  the 
children  of  believing  parents,  he  tries  to  relieve  Calvin  of  teaching  infant 
damnation  by  pointing  to  the  fact  that  he  taught  that  dying  infants  may 
be  saved  without  baptism.  But  Calvin  was  talking  of  those  who  had  a 
right  to  baptism  but  failed  to  receive  the  ordinance.  He  did  not  anywhere 
assert  that  all  dying  infants  had  a  right  to  baptism  or  that  all  such  are 
saved.  Now  then,  according  to  Calvin's  interpretation  and  limited  appli- 
cation of  the  passage  it  cannot  be  made  to  teach  without  exception  the 
salvation  of  all  dying  infants.  And  yet  he  charges  to  the  "art  and  sub- 
tlety of  Satan  and  the  perversity  of  human  nature"  the  criticism  that  the 
Calvinistic  confessional  statement  involves  infant  damnation.  A  good 
interpretation  and  solid  argument  would  be  far  more  effective  than  such 
method  of  dealing  with  this  question.  He  must  needs  charge  a  vast 
multitude  with  being  affected  by  the  subtlety  of  Satan,   for  clear  thinkers 


•72  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

in  all  ages  have  recognized  the  fact  that  to  assert  the  salvation  of  a 
limited  or  elect  class  of  dying  infants  necessarily  puts  the  balance  of  the 
dying  infant  class  outside  the  pale  of  salvation.  It  is  no  answer  at 
all  to  point  out  that  such  criticism  has  been  directed  at  Calvinists  rather 
than  at  the  Romish  church  which  teaches  that  baptism  is  necessary  to 
salvation  and  that  all  dying  infants  unbaptized  are  lost.    P.  i6. 

On  page  17  he  makes  an  admission  which  is  exceedingly  damaging  to  all 
his  own  strictures.  "We  freely  confess  (he  says)  that  the  phraseology, 
which  300  3'ears  ago  had  probably  a  reference  now  lost,  is  unfortunate 
and  needlessly  perplexing,  if  not  misleading."  Then  what  right  has  he 
to  impugn  the  honesty  of  those  who  interpret  the  clause  differently  from 
what  he  does?  His  next  sentence  simply  betrays  his  own  utter  inability 
to  understand  the  problem  which  the  use  of  "elect"  to  set  off  a  limited 
class  of  dying  infants  has  produced.  He  says  to  substitute  "elect  per- 
sons dying  in  infancy"  would  be  free  from  all  possible  misunderstanding." 
We  think  that  it  would  make  not  one  iota  of  difference,  for  everybody 
knows  without  being  told  that  infants  are  persons.  "Non-elect  persons 
dying  in  infancy"  just  as  certainly  carries  the  implication  of  non  elect 
infants,  unless  it  be  explained  that  "elect"  is  used  as  an  attributive  of 
dying  infants  instead  of  to  limit  the  class.  But  it  would  not  be  a  very 
natural  way  to  speak  of  dying  infants  as  a  division  of  the  elect  to  intro- 
duce by  the  phrase  "elect  persons,"  so  that  the  old  implication  stands 
as  the  more   probable  one  with  this   wording. 

On  page  19  our  author  tells  us  that  the  uassage  in  Matt.  19  has 
"application  not  only  to  the  case  of  the  infants  of  Christian  parents, 
but  to  all  deceased  infants  of  all  ages."  But  the  trouble  is  he  fails  to  tell' 
us  how.  Although  sympathizing  with  his  position,  we  cannot  but  recog- 
nize the  weakness  of  the  showing  he  makes  for  it.  He  gives  us  nothing 
but  his  own  opinions  and  assertions  which  are  worthless  for  purposes  of 
argument. 

But  worse  than  this,  instead  of  giving  us  the  correct  interpretation  of 
the  passage  he  misinterprets  both  members  of  the  phrase  "kingdom  of 
heaven"  so  as  to  destroy  its  effective  use  as  a  proof  of  infant  salvation. 
He  is  not  consistent  however  for  he  "does  not  hesitate  to  affirm"  that 
when  Christ  came  down  from  heaven  he  "left  behind  him  in  heaven  in- 
numerable millions  of  the  infant  dead,  who  since  the  advent  of  sin  and 
death  in  the  world  had  been  gathering  there,  waiting  for  the  purposed 
and  promised  redemption  of  the  people  of  God  in  the  day  of  Christ 
which  is  emphatically  called  "the  day  of  redemption,  whereunto  by  his 
Spirit  we  are  sealed."  Eph.  4:  30.  See  page  23.  One  would  suppose  that 
this  implies  the  true  meaning  had  he  not  previously  told  us  that  the 
phrase  "kingdom  of  heaven"  "perhaps  never  does  mean  heaven  in  the 
ordinary  use  of  the  word  as  locally  distinct  from  the  earth."  And  he 
asserts  that  "the  kingdom  is  locally  on  earth,  and  is  coming,  but  not  yet 
come."     This  is  a  strange  position  to  take. 

If  one  will  turn  to  the  word  "kingdom"  in  the  concordance  he  will 
see  how  wide  of  the  truth   is  such  an  assertion.     The  very  first  use  of 


CONFESSIOXAL  REVISION.  73 

the  phrase  in  Matthew  refers  to  the  incoming  of  the  gospel  dispensation. 
It  was  already  "at  hand"  because  Christ  was  immediately  to  appear. 
Christ  said  also  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  In  the  parables 
the  phrase  is  constantly  used  to  describe  the  visible  church.  It  is 
perfectly  natural  that  it  should  also  be  used  to  express  the  consummation 
of  the  great  plan  of  redemption,  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom.  This  is 
what  is  meant  by  the  prayer,  "Thy  kingdom  come."  And  this  very  pas- 
sage quoted  to  prove  his  contention  in  reference  to  heaven  proves  just 
the  reverse,  for  the  comparison  between  the  conditions  on  earth  and  in 
heaven  shows  conclusively  that  our  author  is  wrong  in  his  idea  that 
"heaven"  is  never  used  in  Scripture  in  the  usual  sense.  It  is  thus  used 
in  Matt.  18:  "In  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  your 
father  who  is  in  heaven."  This  use  cannot  be  avoided,  and  he  himself 
so  uses  it  when  he  represents  the  millions  of  infants  in  heaven  as  wait- 
ing for  the  future  glory.  He  identifies  the  kingdom  with  the  "day  ot 
redemption,"  and  in  so  doing  misinterprets  this  phrase ;  but  it  hardly 
comes  in  the  scope  of  the  present  purpose  to  discuss  this  matter.  He 
gives  a  hint  of  the  truth  when  in  a  rather  disconnected  sentence  he  says, 
"So  that  when  Jesus  said.  'Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,'  it  is  not 
possible  that  he  lost  sight  of  the  countless  millions  of  the  infant  dead  he 
left  in  glory  when  he  came  down  from  heaven."  They  are  not  "lost  sight 
of"  for  the  reason  that  they  are  exclusively  referred  to,  and  reference 
to  a  particular  kind  of  righteous  people  simply  ruins  the  passage. 

Another  bad  argument  needs  to  be  set  aside.  He  seeks  to  make  the 
promise  to  Abraham  quoted  in  Hebrews  11  bear  upon  infant  salvation. 
On  page  29  he  asks  "When  then,  and  in  what  point  of  Jewish  history,  do 
we  find  any  trace  of  that  already  deceased  and  departed  spiritual  seed  of 
Abraham,  numerous  as  the  sand  and  as  the  stars  of  the  sky,  except  among 
the  infant  dead?"  The  answer  to  this  is:  Any  one  who  has  a  proper 
conception  of  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  promise  W'ill  not  look  for  its 
fulfilment  in  any  point  of  Jewish  history.  The  promise  that  the  seed 
should  be  as  the  stars,  and  as  the  dust  of  the  earth  must  not  be  under- 
stood simply  of  the  nation  of  Israel.  If  this  be  confined  to  Israel  where 
is  the  promise  applying  to  the  balance  of  the  spiritual  seed?  The  form  in 
Gen.  17,  "a  multitude  of  nations"  is  simply  a  form  of  the  same  promise. 
He  seems  to  think  that  this  promise  will  be  satisfied  by  the  infant  dead 
of  the  nations?  This  does  not  seem  to  be  a  natural  way  to  interpret 
prophecy.  Referring  again  to  this  promise  on  page  31  he  says:  "If  these 
were  then  "more  in  number  than  the  stars  of  the  sky  and  the  sand  by  the 
seaside" — out  of  one  small  nation  only,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  incom- 
parably greater  multitudes  of  the  infant  dead  of  all  nations?"  "The 
infant  dead  (he  says)  of  all  ages  and  all  nations  and  peoples  will  form 
so  immeasurably  the  greater  part  ...  of  the  redeemed  and  finally 
saved  that  it  may  without  exaggeration  be  said  of  them  :  "Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God' — chiefly  composed  of  them."  There  is  certainly  no 
reference  in  this  text  to  any  division  of  the  infant  dead  into  nations. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  heaven  is  largely  peopled  with  them. 


74  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  must  needs  be 
burdened  by  so  many  indefensible  arguments.  Dr.  Pratt  has  an  original 
interpretation  of  the  parables  of  the  Great  Supper  and  The  Marriage  of 
the  King's  Son.  The  command,  "Go  ye  out  into  the  highways  and 
hedges  and  compel  them  to  come  in,  that  my  house  may  be  filled"  he 
regards  as  having  been  fulfilled  by  the  bringing  in  of  the  infant  dead. 
But  this  is  an  impossible  interpretation.  The  phrase  "compel  them  to 
come  in"  has  been  a  favorite  says  Lightfoot  with  the  persecutor  and  the 
inquisitor,  'but  it  seems  strange  that  there  should  have  been  drawn 
from  them  arguments  for  any  compulsion  but  a  moral  one."  But  if  the 
appeal  was  made  to  those  capable  of  being  reached  by  moral  suasion,  of 
course  it  could  not  apply  to  infants.  In  fact  such  an  interpretation 
would  be  out  of  harmony  with  the  balance  of  the  parable.  The  rational 
interpretation  is  borne  out  by  the  parallel  parable  of  the  marriage  of 
the  king's  son.  The  servants  who  were  sent  into  the  highways  were  to 
bid  people  to  the  marriage  feast.  So  also  the  motley  crowd  which  they 
thus  brought  in  consisting  of  both  bad  and  good  indicates  the  same 
thing.  So  also  does  the  judgment  concerning  the  wedding  garment  rule 
out  those  who  are  incapable  of  free  moral  choice. 

It  would  be  a  very  poor  victory  for  the  church  to  have  the  wedding 
filled  with  guests  of  a  sort  that  had  been  brought  in  by  physical  causes 
over  which  none  but  God  himself  has  the  least  control.  Such  interpre- 
tation brings  the  whole  of  prophecy  into  disrepute.  And  yet  just  this 
is  the  inspiring  thought  which  evidently  led  our  author  to  write  his  so- 
called  study  in  eschatology.  We  find  the  heading  of  the  book  on 
page  34.  Here  Psalm  87  is  referred  to  as  one  of  those  prophecies  which 
the  conception  of  universal  infant  salvation  helps  to  unravel.  Zion  is 
represented  as  the  birthplace  of  the  nations,  at  least  such  representative 
nations  as  Philistia,  Tyre  and  Ethiopia,  and  especially  Egypt  and 
Babylon.  Besides  this  Ps.  86:  9  is  cited,  with  Ps.  22:  2y :  "All  the  ends 
of  the  earth  shall  remember  and  turn  unto  Jehovah,  all  the  kindreds  of 
the  nations  shall  worship  before  thee."  Our  author  likes  to  dwell  upon 
the  first  because  it  seems  to  him  to  furnish  a  ground  for  the  division 
of  the  infant  dead  into  nations,  and  this  gives  him  his  title  "The  Buried 
Nations  of  the  Infant  Dead."  But  why  insist  upon  a  literal  interpreta- 
tion? "All  nations"  evidently  means  the  whole  world,  just  what  is 
plainly  expressed  in  Ps.  22 :  "All  the  ends  of  the  earth."  And  why 
should  not  Egypt  and  Babylon,  and  the  other  nations,  familiar  to  the 
Jews  at  the  time  the  Psalm  was  written,  stand  as  representative  of 
the  heathen  world?  It  seems  exceedingly  unnatural  to  make  these 
nations  to  be  represented  simply  by  the  resurrected  infants  who  died. 
But  this  is  what  our  author  does.  Under  the  title  "The  Millennium" 
(p.  36),  he  thus  presents  the  matter:  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  discussion 
to  show,  and  I  think  that  before  I  am  done  I  shall  conclusively  prove 
that  these  predictions  in  reference  to  Egypt  and  Babylon  and  Philistia, 
and  in  a  word  the  other  dead  and  buried  nations  of  the  past,  both 
known  and  vmknown,  whose  infant  dead  await  in  their  graves  the  resur- 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  75 

rection  of  life  .  .  .  and  whose  spirits  in  heaven  are  "waiting  for  the 
adoption,  to-wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body"  will  be  fulfdled  literally 
at  the  resurrection  of  the  just;  "and  can  only  be  fulfilled  by  the  resur- 
rection of  these  dead  nations,  in  the  persons  of  their  dead  babes." 

But  would  the  resurrected  infants  be  the  nations  resurrected?  We  (Id 
not  think  so.  On  the  other  hand,  such  a  method  of  satisfying  the  demands 
of  these  prophecies  eviscerates  them  completely.  It  destroys  completely 
the  prophecies  which  teach  a  millennial  triumph  for  the  church  when 
"the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  shall  cover  the  earth  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea."  Dr.  Pratt  seems  to  think  this  a  good  thing,  since  there  are 
various  irreconcilable  ideas  as  to  what  this  millennial  period  is,  and  as  to 
how  it  stands  related  to  our  Lord's  coming.  But  we  fancy  that  the 
church  will  not  be  pleased  to  be  thus  lightly  robbed  of  her  most 
glorious  hope.  It  believes  in  infant  salvation  but  not  in  such  a  way  as 
to  supersede  the  church's  triumph.  It  does  not  come  within  the  present 
purpose  to  discuss  the  millennium,  but  such  association  of  thought  by 
w^hich  the  doctrine  of  universal  infant  salvation  is  made  to  supersede 
the  millennium  does  not  add  anything  to  the  discussion  of  infant  salvation. 

SCRIPTURES  EXAMINED. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  various  passages  which  appear  to  shed  light 
upon  the  matter  of  infant  salvation.  The  classic  passage  in  Mark  10:  14 
and  Matt.  19 :  14  has  already  received  considerable  attention  in  connection 
with  the  arguments  of  others,  but  it  seems  to  call  for  a  more  extended 
exposition  in  order  to  establish  what  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  the  only 
correct  interpretation,  and  the  only  one  which  makes  it  bear  upon  univer- 
sal infant  salvation.  This  exposition  was  written  several  years  ago  and 
together  with  several  others  on  the  same  subject  was  printed  in  one  of 
the  church  papers. 

We  choose  Mark's  account  of  this  incident  because  it  is  more  particu- 
lar in  that  it  mentions  the  indignation  which  the  Lord  Jesus  felt  at 
the  efifort  to  prevent  the  access  of  the  children  to  him,  and  also  because 
it  brings  the  teaching  concerning  the  child-like  spirit  into  close  connec- 
tion with  the  incident.  A  comparison  of  the  accounts  seems  to  show 
that  this  teaching  was  not  confined  to  any  one  occasion,  but  that  it  was 
repeated  on  several  occasions.  And  certainly  it  was  needed,  for  the 
disciples  were  not  immune  to  the  temptations  of  ambition.  In  spite  of  the 
lesson  first  given  in  Matt.  18:  3  it  had  to  be  repeated  in  connection  with 
the  request  of  James  and  John  in  chapter  twenty,  and  no  doubt 
Mark  has  correctly  introduced  the  same  in  connection  with  the 
incident  of  the  bringing  of  the  children  to  Jesus.  These  children  must 
have  included  some  very  small  ones,  for  Luke  calls  them  babes 
(brephe).  The  purpose  of  the  parents  must  have  been  to  seek  a  spiritual 
blessing  for  the  children,  and  doubtless  they  believed  it  would  mean  their 
salvation.  Matthew  tells  us  that  the  purpose  was  "that  he  should  lay 
his    hands    upon    them    and    pray."      It    is    natural    to    suppose    that   they 


76  INFAXT  SALFATIOX  AND 

believed  such  prayers  on  behalf  of  the  children  would  be  efifective.  The 
disciples  seem  to  have  thought  that  they  were  too  young  to  be  considered 
in  connection  with  the  matter  of  salvation,  and  this  it  was  no  doubt 
which  roused  the  indignation  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Perhaps  they  had 
forgotten  the  significance  of  circumcision,  and  the  ritual  baptism  pre- 
scribed for  them  in  Leviticus  12,  and  it  is  possible  that  there  may  have 
been  some  in  the  crowd  that  were  children  of  Gentiles,  who  did  not 
seem  to  the  apostles  to  have  any  claim  upon  the  Savior's  attention.  If  so, 
their  minds  were  speedily  disabused  of  the  error,  for  he  gives  them  to 
understand  that  not  merely  was  there  a  peculiar  fitness  in  his  receiving 
them,  but  there  would  be  a  marked  incongruity  in  debarring  them  from 
his  presence,   for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  heaven. 

What  now  does  "Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God"  mean?  We  believe 
that  it  does  not  mean  what  the  Revisers  have  interpreted  it  to  mean  by 
the  new  translation  "to  such  belongeth  the  kingdom  of  God."  We  do 
not  see  how  the  genitive  "of  such"  can  be  converted  into  "to  such," 
especially  when  the  dative  in  such  a  situation  would  more  naturally 
express  possession.  It  is  true  that  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun 
is  used  in  Matt.  5:3  and  Matt.  5:  10,  and  is  translated  "theirs,"  but  the 
personal  pronoun  lends  itself  to  that  translation  in  a  way  that  "of  such" 
in  our  passage  does  not.  We  think  the  old  translation  is  superior  to  the 
new,  and  that  the  substantive  verb  which  has  to  be  supplied  carries  with 
it  the  idea  of  "composed  or  constituted."  "Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God  composed  or  constituted."  The  phrase  kingdom  of  God  or  heaven 
should  be  taken  to  mean  heaven  itself,  the  kingdom  of  glory,  as  in 
Matt.  18:3,  and  not  of  the  kingdom  of  the  redeemed  on  earth,  as  it  is 
generally  understood.  We  see  no  reason  why  this  sense  of  the  word 
with  the  translation  "of  them"  should  not  be  understood  in  Matt.  5:3, 
Blessed  is  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  of  them  (or  the  same)  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  "Blessed  are  they  that  have  been  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness sake,  for  of  them  (or  the  same)  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  It 
would  then  mean,  this  is  the  sort  of  people  who  go  to  compose   heaven. 

This  matter  is  of  importance  because  upon  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
"kingdom  of  heaven"  depends  what  we  get  out  of  the  verse.  If  the 
Saviour  means  to  say  to  the  disciples  "Of  just  such  children  as  these  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  constituted,"  he  means  to  imply  not  the  present 
salvation  of  all  those  children,  but  that  these  are  as  nearest  the  kingdom 
precisely  the  most  hopeful  material  for  the  kingdom  on  earth,  whereas 
the  disciples  adjudged  them  to  be  beneath  his  notice.  If  this  interpreta- 
tion is  correct,  we  have  here  an  important  proof  that  all  who  are  taken 
away  from  this  world  in  the  infant  state  are  saved,  and  no  other  inter- 
pretation yields  this  important  result. 

Calvin  seems  to  have  been  misled  in  his  interpretation  by  his  desire  to 
construct  from  the  passage  an  argument  for  infant  baptism.  Our  modern 
theologians  have  reproduced  his  argument  without  perceiving  its  weak- 
ness in  that  it  rests  upon  a  misunderstanding  of  the  phrase  "kingdom  of 
God."      Calvin    and   all    our   modern    writers,    as    far   as   we   know,    have 


COXFESSIONAL  REl'lSIOX. 


// 


taken  the  phrase  as  descriptive  of  those  who  are  members  of  the  spiritual 
kingdom  in  this  world,  that  is  to  say,  subjects  of  God's  grace. 

A  quotation  from  chapter  i6.  Sec.  7  of  the  Institutes  will  serve  to  make 
Calvin's  view  clear :  "Wherefore  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  exhibit  a  specimen 
from  which  the  world  might  understand  that  he  was  come  to  extend  rather 
than  to  limit  the  mercy  of  the  father,  kindly  received  the  infants  that 
were  presented  to  him,  and  embraced  them  in  his  arms  chiding  his  dis- 
ciples who  endeavored  to  forbid  their  approach  to  him,  because  they 
would  keep  those  of  whom  was  the  kingdom  of  heaven  at  a  distance 
from  him  who  is  the  only  way  of  entrance  to  it."  His  idea  seems  to  be 
that  the  children  were  either  already  in  the  kingdom  by  reason  of  a 
covenant  standing,  or  that  Christ's  blessing  would  have  the  effect  of  giv- 
ing them  entrance  to  the  spiritual  kingdom.  Or  perhaps  it  is  more  cor- 
rect to  say  that  he  makes  both  pleas  for  them,  however  mutually  exclusive 
they  may  appear  to  be.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  has  in  mind  the 
children  of  the  church  and  no  others.  This  is  clear  from  what  he  says 
about  their  covenant  standing.  Christ  came  to  extend  the  mercy  of  the 
Father  in  the  sense  that  the  covenant  with  its  seal  of  baptism  was 
broadened  out  to  cover  the  children  of  all  believers.  The  covenant  stand- 
ing "belongs  to  the  children  of  Christians  now,  as  much  as  it  did  to  the 
infants  of  the  Jews  under  the  Old  Testament."     (Sec.  5.) 

We  do  not  need  Calvin's  argument  to  infant  baptism,  for  there  are 
more  solid  arguments  to  be  advanced  on  this  subject,  but  we  do  need  10 
recognize  and  accept  the  true  understanding  of  the  phrase  "kingdom 
of  heaven"  because  this  together  with  its  complement  in  Matt.  18:14 
clearly  asserts  the  salvation  of  all  who  are  called  to  their  account  as 
infants.  The  two  passages  are  not  to  be  taken  as  directly  connected 
with  each  other,  and  there  is  no  reference  in  "of  such"  to  older  people 
of  child-like  spirit.  Calvin  ought  never  to  have  admitted  this  interpreta- 
tion. It  damaged  even  his  argument  to  infant  baptism,  but  we  should 
reject  it  because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  true  conception  of  the  saying 
of  Jesus.  The  saying  evidently  has  reference  to  children  as  children,  and 
not  to  any  particular  character  which  they  were  supposed  to  possess. 
Nor  is  there  a  reference  to  a  limited  class  of  children  as  church  mem- 
bers. We  have  no  means  of  knowing  whether  all  the  children  who  came 
to  Jesus  were  from  believing  families  or  not,  but  it  is  evidently  improper 
to  go  upon  the  supposition  that  they  were,  and  upon  the  strength  of  this 
to  rule  out  the  children  of  the  heathen.  Why  should  not  all  infant 
children,  called  to  account  as  infants,  stand  upon  the  same  footing?  Jesus 
evidently  indicates  heaven  as  the  destination  of  all  who  are  called  away 
from  earth  at  this  stage  of  life.  Since  they  are  called  away  by  death, 
they  are  designated  in  the  confession  as  infants  who  die  in  infancy.  If 
"elect"  had  been  omitted  the  expression  would  of  course  have  included  the 
whole  of  the  class.  But  in  view  of  the  controversy  upon  this  question  a 
clear-cut  statement  would  naturally  add  "all"  by  way  of  emphasis. 


78  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

INFANT  SALVATION  ASSERTED  IN  MATT.  i8:  14. 

We  believe  that  in  Matt.   18:   14  the  Lord  Jesus  clearly  asserts  that  it 
is  the  divine  will  that  all  who  are  called  to  their  account  as  infants  shall 
be  saved,  for  this  is  the  counterpart  affirmative  of  saying  that  it  is  not  his 
will  that  "one  of  these   little  ones  should  perish."    The  only  question  is 
as  to  who  are  "these  little  ones?"    It  is  a  strange  fact  that  Meyer  so  inter- 
prets  "little   ones"   as   to   rule   out   the   little   children   altogether,   making 
it    refer    exclusively    to    older    people    of    a    childlike    spirit.      We    think 
this  interpretation  is  hardly  defensible,  but  the  interpretation  thus  given 
comes   from   taking   the   same   phrase   in   verse   6  in   this   sense.      Let   us 
then  first  take  up  this  and  other  verses  in  the  light  of  the  context.     In 
order  to  teach  the  disciples  a  lesson  of  humility  and  self-abnegation  the 
Lord  Jesus  had  set  before  them  a  little  child.     Saying  in  effect  "Do  you 
see  this  little  child,  unless  ye  turn  about  and  become  as  little  children,  ye 
shall   in   no   wise   enter   into   the   kingdom  of   heaven."     As   if   this   were 
too  general  he  repeats  the  simile :    Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble  him- 
self as  this  little  child,  the   same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of   heaven. 
This  is  a  direct  answer  to  the  disciples'  question  "Who  then  is  greatest 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven?"     This  is  to  say,  Unless  you  so  modify  your 
views  and  ambitions  concerning  life  and  service  as  to  exhibit  the  spirit 
of   humility   and   self-abnegation   which   you   see   in   this   child   you   shall 
not  see  heaven  at  all.     The  point  where   Meyer   switches  off  is   at  verse 
5,  and  he  does  not  state  the  case  correctly,  for  he  says,  "The  question  of 
the   disciples   has   been  answered.     But  his   eye  having  lighted   upon   this 
child   who  happened  to  be   present,  Jesus  now   seizes  the  opportunity  of 
inculcating  upon  them  the  duty  of  taking  an  affectionate  interest  in  such 
little  ones."    To  say  that  the  child  happened  to  be  present  and  the  Savior's 
eye  "lighted  upon  it"  does  not  represent  the  fact  of  the  narrative  that  he 
expressly  put  it  up  for  purpose  of  illustration.     The  exhortation  to  take 
a   friendly  interest  in  "such  little  ones"  was   secondary  to  the  main  pur- 
pose.    Since  the  language  is  "as  this  little  child"  (v.  4),  it  seems  quite  evi- 
dent that   Meyer  uses   the   term   "little  ones"   here   as  equivalent  to   such 
little  children.     But  in  the  next  sentence  he  flies  the  track  and  leaves  the 
little  children  entirely  out  of  sight.     Commenting  upon  "such  little  child" 
he  says :    "According  to  the  context  not  a  literal  child  which  would  give 
a  turn  to  the  discourse  utterly  foreign  to  the  connection,  but  a  man  of  such 
a  disposition  as  this  little  child  represents- — one  whp  with   childlike  sim- 
plicity is  humble  and  unassuming."     When  he  says,  "And  whosoever  shall 
receive    one   such    little    child   in   my   name    receiveth   me,"   how    can   the 
children  themselves  be  excluded,  even  granting  that  the  inculcated  spirit 
is   the   prominent   idea?     How   can   an   adult   of   such   desirable   spirit  be 
styled  "a  little  child"  without  being  classed  with  the  children  themselves? 
It  would  be  contradictory  then  to  exclude  them  altogether.     Now  we  have 
in  verse  6  the  phrase   "little   ones,"   and   Meyer  thinks   this   is  not  to  be 
understood   of   "literal    children."      He   says   it   is   "not   to  be   understood 
any  more  than  "such   child"    (v.  5)    of  literal  children,   and   consequently 


CONFESSIOXAL  REVISION.  79 

not  to  be  used  as  proof  of  the  faith  of  little  children,  but  as  meaning: 
"one  of  those  little  ones, — a  way  of  designating  modest,  simple-minded, 
unassuming  believers,  that  had  just  been  suggested  by  seeing  in  the 
child  then  present  a  model  of  simplicity."  It  does  not  seem  natural  to 
pronounced  so  severe  a  sentence  against  misleading  "one  of  these  little 
ones  that  believe  on  me,"  if  the  term  little  ones  does  not  include  those 
of  tender  years  who  would  be  specially  liable  to  be  deceived,  for  the 
modesty  and  humility  of  believers  should  not  make  them  liable  to  decep- 
tion, or  make  them  easy  subjects  of  temptation. 

If  we  examine  the  parallel  passage  in  Mark  lo,  15,  "Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
therein" ;  this  seems  to  indicate  that  the  spirit  sought  to  be  inculcated  is 
that  of  meekness  and  faith — the  faith  of  the  little  child  trusting  a  superior 
wisdom  to  its  own.  It  is  this  spirit  which  the  Savior  inculcated  when  he 
said:  "Take  my  yoke  upon  you  and  learn  of  me,  for  I  am  meek  and 
lowly  in  heart  and  ye  shall  hnd  rest  unto  your  souls."  And  this  maj' 
help  us  understand  what  the  injunction  against  "despising  one  of  these 
little  ones"  means.  (Matt.  18:  10.)  And  also  Luke's  turn  to  the  passage 
concerning  "receiving  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child."  (Luke 
18:  17.)  Receiving  the  kingdom  of  God  means  to  accept  the  truth,  and  this 
enables  us  to  understand  what  Matthew's  account  means  concerning 
"receiving  one  such  little  child"  in  my  name,  for  receiving  the  kingdom 
and  receiving  members  of  the  kingdom  must  be  close  of  kin.  The  latter 
must  mean  the  recognition  of  their  christian  standing,  and  the  witness 
which  they  bear  by  the  very  fact  of  their  faith.  This  would  apply  equally 
well  to  humble  adult  christians  and  to  children  as  "little  ones  that 
believe  me."  If  the  believing  trustful  spirit  of  such  little  ones  as  are 
capable  of  an  intelligent  faith  renders  them  the  objects  of  God's  special 
care,  how  can  these  same  little  ones  and  all  of  their  class  be  excluded, 
when  of  such  tender  years  as  to  be  incapable  of  faith?  The  condition 
of  dependence  and  helplessness  is  there  all  the  more,  and  it  is  the  essence 
of  faith  to  recognize  ones  self  as  in  this  condition?  A  natural  inability 
to  understand  and  recognize  ones  helplessness  certainly  cannot  be  in 
God's  sight  a  reason  for  excluding  such  persons  from  the  salvation 
brought  by  him  who  came  to  seek  and  save  the  lost.  Would  it  not  be 
just  as  unreasonable  as  to  sa)^  that  the  lost  wanderer  in  the  snow  drifts 
who  has  become  benumbed  and  unconscious  should  not  be  rescued  when 
found  because  he  is  not  able  to  appreciate  his  condition?  Will  Christ 
pass  by  those  sheep  which  not  only  do  not  know  the  way  home  but 
have  not  yet  discovered  that  they  are  lost?  This  surely  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  prophecy  that  he  will  "gather  the  lambs  in  his  arm  and 
carry  them  in   his  bosom."      (Isa.  40:   11.) 

Now  if  those  who  are  literally  "little  ones"  cannot  be  ruled  out  of 
the  preceding  context  in  Matthew  18,  they  must  be  included  in  v.  14, 
which  positively  asserts  God's  will  concerning  the  little  ones.  God's 
special  care  for  them  is  indicated  in  verse  10,  where  it  is  said  that  "in 
heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  who  is  in 


8o  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

heaven."      It   would    be    strange   if   the    little    ones    most    helpless    should 
be  ruled  out  from  this  guardian  care. 

Such  a  text  as  that  of  John  3:  18,  19,  which  teaches  that  condemna- 
tion will  come  from  the  rejection  of  God's  plan  of  salvation  appears  to 
exempt  infants  from  condemnation,  for  this  occasion  or  cause  of  con- 
demnation does  not  apply  to  them.  The  passage  attributes  condemna- 
to  the  wilful'  rejection  of  the  truth.  Because  men  loved  darkness  rather 
than  light  they  rejected  God's  salvation  and  refused  to  believe.  This 
positive  refusal  brings  condemnation  to  the  world.  Now  if  "God  sent 
not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  his  purpose 
being  on  the  other  hand,  to  save  the  world,  he  places  the  responsibility 
for  being  lost  upon  man  himself,  and  surely  this  implies  a  probation  to 
all  who  receive  the  message  and  are  intelligent  enough  to  apprehend  it. 
It  would  seem  to  let  out  and  place  in  entirely  a  different  class  all  the 
human  race  who  have  not  been  guilty  of  a  positive  rejection  of  God's 
messenger  of  peace  and  life.  Should  not  God's  purpose  to  save  the 
world  apply  to  the  advantage  of  all  who  have  not  rejected  his  plan;  and 
amongst  these  the  most  unquestionable  are  those  who  were  called  away 
from  this  world  before  they  had  any  opportunity  to  accept  or  reject 
God's  plan.  As  for  the  adult  heathen  who  do  not  have  God's  word,  Paul 
teaches  that  they  will  be  judged  according  to  the  light  they  have,  that  is, 
the  light  of  conscience,  so  that  they  do  not  constitute  an  exception  to 
the  rule  of  being  judged  for  rejection  of  the  light;  the  only  difference 
is  in  the  amount  of  the  light.  Does  not  this  bring  under  God's  definite 
purpose  of  salvation  all  who  walk  in  darkness  and  have  no  light? 
(Isa.  50:  10.)  We  think  there  are  passages  which  proclaim  this  purpose 
directly.  Is  it  not  better  to  hold  this  than  to  teach  as  some  ultra 
Calvinists  do  that  the  children  are  condemned  by  reason  of  a  prenatal 
connection  with  Adam?     See  Theol.   Infant  Salvation,   p.  272. 

THE  LITTLE  ONES.  NUM.  14:  31- 

We  think  a  strong  positive  argument  in  favor  of  the  conclusion  that 
judgment  is  to  be  according  to  the  light  possessed  and  the  ability  of  the 
parties  in  question  may  be  deduced  from  what  God  says  concerning 
the  little  ones  in  Num.  14:  31.  It  is  true  that  the  passage  does  not  refer 
to  the  final  judgment,  but  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  should.  The  point 
is  that  it  relieves  the  little  ones  of  the  responsibility  for  the  disobedience 
and  moral  guilt  of  the  older  people.  Since  God  exempts  them  from 
the  punishment  which  he  meted  out  to  all  the  grown  up  people  he  makes 
a  clear  difference  as  to  their  responsibility  for  the  national  sin.  And 
the  case  is  made  stronger  in  favor  of  real  infants  by  the  fact  that 
the  line  was  in  this  case  drawn  at  twenty  years.  Why  should  not  this 
obviously  righteous  principle  of  judgment  be  extended  to  the  final 
judgment,  and  apply  to  the  status  before  God  as  regards  sin  and  salva- 
tion? The  final  judgment  really  comes  to  them  when  they  die,  and 
so  is  simply  the  application  of  the  same  principle  in  time  to  the  final 
destiny.     It   is  quite  likely  that  these  young  people   and   children   agreed 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  8i 

with  their  parents  regarding  the  report  of  the  spies,  and  the  determina- 
tion not  to  go  up  and  take  the  land.  Their  unbeHef  was  no  doubt  the 
same,  and  they  must  have  many  of  them  joined  in  the  murmering  objec- 
tion to  doing  what  God  told  them  to  do.  But  the  older  ones  of  the 
people  were  punished  and  the  younger  exempted.  Not  because  the  older 
children  at  least  were  not  blamable  for  their  sin,  but  because  God  regarded 
the  difference  in  the  maturity  of  the  faculties  as  making  a  great  differ- 
ence in  the  degree  of  guilt.  God  was  very  angry  and  seemed  about 
to  destroy  the  whole  people,  but  Moses  interceded,  and  the  people  were 
simply  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  going  into  the  promised  land.  He 
declared  that  only  the  little  ones  for  whom  they  professed  such  solicitude 
should  go  in.  If  God  had  really  destroyed  the  whole  people  as  he  at 
first  threatened  to  do,  the  children  would  of  course  have  suffered  natural 
death  along  with  the  grown  people;  but  the  same  difference  of  responsi- 
bility must  have  obtained  as  was  afterwards  made,  and  there  seems  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  this  would  have  secured  salvation  to  the  little  ones. 
The  promise  of  the  land  was  typical  of  the  promise  of  salvation  in 
heaven,  and  if  any  were  saved  as  the  true  seed  of  Abraham  it  must  have 
lieen  the  infant  children  of  Abraham  who  had  not  sinned  after  the  like- 
ness of  Adam's  transgression?  Here  we  have  the  difference  in  the 
responsibility  established  by  God's  own  act  and  judgment,  and  this  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  simply  assuming  such  irresponsibility.  An 
interpretation  of  the  second  commandment  has  come  down  from  the  past 
which  makes  the  children  to  be  held  accountable  for  their  faither's 
sins;  "but  the  interpretation  is  incorrect  and  contradicts  the  plain  and 
positive  teaching  of  Ez.  i8,  which  deals  with  the  matter  of  the  final 
judgment.  The  meaning  of  the  second  commandment  may  be  illustrated 
by  the  supposed  case  above.  If  God  had  carried  out  his  threat  and 
destroyed  the  people  for  their  sin  he  would  have  in  a  true  sense  "visited 
the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  but  this  would  be  by 
the  operation  of  natural  laws,  and  would  have  no  reference  to  final 
accountability  for  sin.  Another  case  of  the  application  of  the  rule  would 
be  where  the  parent  entailed  upon  his  children  the  physical  disability 
which  he  had  induced  in  himself  by  his  own  imprudence  and  sin.  This 
furnishes  no  basis   whatever   for   the   assertion   of  infant   damnation. 

That  the  principle  of  exemption  of  the  little  children  does  apply  to 
the  final  judgment  is  corroborated  by  our  Lord's  teaching  in  Luke  12: 
48  that  "to  whosoever  much  is  given  of  him  shall  much  be  required." 
The  servant  who  knows  his  Lord's  will  and  did  it  not  shall  be  beaten 
with  many  stripes,  but  he  who  knows  it  not  and  does  things  worth}'  of 
stripes  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes.  His  lack  of  knowledge  was  of 
course  not  entirely  innocent,  but  in  the  case  of  the  infant  the  same 
rule  will  apply  by  an  a  fortiori  argument  to  exempt  them  from  all  punish- 
ment. It  is  a  great  mistake  therefore  to  say  that  the  Scripture  is  silent  on 
so  important  a  matter.  Paul  instanced  an  application  of  this  truth  to  the 
heathen  world  when  he  said  to  the  Athenians  upon  the  Areopagus,  '"The 
times   of  ignorance  therefore   God  overlooked,    but   now   he   commandeth 


82  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

men  that  they  should  all  (everyone)  everywhere  repent."  As  regards  the 
heathen  who  had  never  had  the  advantage  of  instruction  in  the  things 
of  God  Paul  teaches  still  more  definitely  in  Romans  2 :  12  that  "as  many 
as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish  without  law,  and  as  many 
as  have  sinned  under  law  shall  be  judged  by  law."  Is  it  not  easy  to 
draw  an  a  fortiori  argument  from  this  to  the  infant?  And  yet  they 
tell  us  that  the  Bible  is   silent  on  the  matter  of  infant  salvation. 

In  Isaiah  5:3,  4  God  appeals  to  men's  natural  sense  of  right  to 
support  the  principle  that  responsibility  and  opportunity  must  be  com- 
mensurate. "What  could  I  have  done  more  to  my  vineyard  that  I  have 
not  done  in  it?"  This-  shows  us  that  where  there  has  been  no  seed-sowing 
and  preparation  for  a  harvest  the  harvest  is  not  to  be  expected.  Any 
other  principle  would  necessitate  a  change  in  the  parables  of  the  pounds 
and  the  talents,  so  that  even  if  nothing  was  given  in  the  way  of  capital 
with  which  to  trade,  the  Lord  would  yet  come  back  and  demand  bricks 
without  straw  all  the  same.  God  professes  to  be  not  unreasonable  in  his 
judgments,   he   does  not  require  the   impossible. 

GENESIS  4:   6,   7. 

As  illustrative  of  the  same  principle  of  judgment  as  regards  the  young 
we  have  the  incident  recorded  in  Genesis  4:  6,  7.  It  is  exceedingly 
instructive  as  showing  God's  tender  consideration  for  the  first  erring 
child,  or  young  man,  under  the  dominance  of  a  hot  head.  Cain  was 
already  jealous  of  his  brother  because  Abel's  sacrifice  and  worship 
had  been  accepted  while  his  own  will  worship  with  an  unbloody  sacri- 
fice had  been  rejected.  This  made  him  very  angry.  Our  passage  gives 
us  God's  warning  and  remonstrance  concerning  the  indulgence  of  such 
a  state  of  mind.  "Why  art  thou  wroth?"  he  says,  "and  why  is  thy 
countenance  fallen?  If  thou  doest  well,  will  it  not  be  lifted  up,"  or 
more  literally,  "If  thou  doest  well,  is  it  not  (natural  or  characteristic) 
to  lift  it  up?"  His  countenance  was  an  infallible  evidence  of  a  bad 
state  of  mind  and  heart.  This  was  due  to  sin.  "And  if  thou  doest 
not  well  sin  croucheth  at  the  door."  Its  evil  desire  is  upon  thee,  but 
do  thou  control  it."  Notice  that  here  is  a  kindly  warning  concerning 
evil  passions  experienced  for  the  first  time  by  any  member  of  the  human 
race,  for  Cain  was  the  first  child  to  be  born  a  sinner.  God  deals  with 
the  erring  boy  as  an  earthly  parent,  if  wise,  would  do.  He  appeals  to 
his  consciousness  and  his  conscience  to  show  him  that  the  source 
of  his  unhappiness  lies  in  his  own  sinful  heart;  and  then  he  makes 
his  appeal  to  tHb  better  nature  to  induce  him  to  control  himself  on 
principles  of  righteousness.  Self-control  is  the  great  lesson  of  life 
which  all  need  to  learn,  and  here  in  the  very  beginning  we  have  the 
true  psychology  taught  that  sin  in  its  beginning  lies  in  the  evil  desire 
of  the  heart.  Here  is  the  secret  of  that  moral  perversion,  that  death 
which  Paul  tells  us  "passed  unto  all  men."  The  word  "desire"  here 
used  is  the  same  sense  as  that  in  Gen.  3  :  16:    "Thy  desire  is  (not  shall  be) 


CONFESSiOXAL  REJ'ISION.  83 

to  thy  husl)and,"  that  is,  he  possesses  your  sinful  desire  which  you 
induced  in  him  by  your  temptation  to  eat  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  "he 
will  rule  over  thee"  in  a  way  which  will  be  anything  but  pleasant  and 
desirable. 

If  Cain  had  been  grown  at  the  time  of  this  incident,  having  a  con- 
science properly  instructed  as  regards  good  and  evil,  we  should  expect 
sharp  rebuke  instead  of  kindly  warning;  so  that  God's  treatment  in  this 
case  is  instructive  as  showing  his  sympathy  with  poor  fallen  human 
nature  in  its  weakness,  especially  when  the  faculties  are  still  immature. 
He  gives  Cain  instruction  in  time  to  have  prevented  his  great  sin  had 
he  only  given  due  heed  to  it.  This  treatment  of  the  first  erring  child 
furnishes  another  argument  a  fortiori  to  show  that  God  does  not  hold 
little  children  to  the  responsibility  of  grown  people.  Cain  was  not 
free  from  sin  and  responsibility  for  his  improper  worship  of  God.  Adam 
and  Eve  must  have  instructed  Cain  and  Abel  alike,  and  Cain  must  have 
known  as  well  as  Abel  that  bloody  offering  was  required  "from  the 
firstlings  of  the  flock  with  the  fat  thereof"  at  the  end  of  the  days  that 
is,  in  the  appointed  time,  so  there  was  no  excuse  for  his  arbitrary  will 
worship ;  nor  was  he  reasonable  in  being  angry  against  God  for  not 
accepting  his  offerings,  much  less  justified  in  his  mean  jealousy  and 
hatred  of  Abel  because  he  was  more  righteous  tlian  himself.  But  God 
deals  with  the  erring  child  very  tenderly,  and  this  shows  that  he  recognizes 
different  degrees  of  guilt  and  makes  due  allowance  for  immature  faculties. 
If  judgment  is  according  to  light,  where  there  is  no  light  there  can  be 
no  judgment,  but  mercy  will  rejoice  against  judgment. 

Since  the  force  of  our  argument  depends  upon  the  recognition  of  the 
fact  of  Cain's  youth,  let  it  be  noted  that  in  addition  to  the  mild  treat- 
ment he  received  his  youth  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
the  warning  was  entirely  disregarded.  He  evidently  decoyed  his  brother 
out  into  the  field  apart  from  the  house  and  killed  him  before  his  heat 
of  passion  had  had  time  to  cool.  That  he  was  a  hot-headed  youth 
seems  to  be  indicated  also  by  his  impertinent  reply  to  God's  question. 
"Where  is  Abel  thy  brother?"  His  reply,  "Am  I  my  brother's  keeper." 
seems  to  indicate  thoughtlessness  and  impetuosity  instead  of  the  heaven 
daring  wickedness  of  the  hardened  sinner.  His  brooding  over  the  non- 
acceptance  of  his  sacrifice  seems  to  indicate  that  he  was  not  at  the  time 
so  hardened  as  not  to  be  disturbed  by  the  lack  of  God's  favor.  We  may 
find  a  hint  of  his  youth  also  in  the  fact  that  his  marriage,  recorded  after 
this,  in  the  land  of  Nod,  must  have  taken  place  long  after  the  murder 
and  the  flight  from  home.  We  think,  therefore,  that  God's  fatherly  treat- 
ment of  him  is  clearly  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  score  of  his  inex- 
perience, and,  therefore,  it  bears  upon  our  subject.  The  natural  father- 
hood which  is  here  so  impressively  exercised  to  give  warning  of  impend- 
ing sin  and  danger  will  no  doubt  be  exercised  by  God  in  "turning  his 
hand  to  the  protection  of  the  little  ones,"  who  on  account  of  their 
freedom  from  actual  transgression  will  have  the  benefit  of  his  fatherly 
care   unembarrassed  by  his  judgeship. 


84  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

NUMBERS  31 :  18. 

This  passage  appears  to  be  in  some  sense  a  parallel  to  Num.  14:  31. 
for  this  exempts  children  of  a  certain  class  from  the  sins  and  disabili- 
ties of  heathendom  and  actually  incorporates  them  in  a  block  into  the 
church.  It  is  true  that  the  male  children  are  excluded  from  this  favor, 
and  this  no  doubt  because  the  integrity  of  the  Jewish  church  demanded 
it.  The  men  when  they  developed  from  boyhood  would  become  heads 
of  families,  and  if  they  retained  their  heathen  ideas  they  would  prove  to 
be  a  serious  disturbance  and  menace  to  the  purity  of  Israel,  but  the 
girls  could  be  incorporated  without  this  danger  to  the  church,  and  so 
God  directs  that  this  class  of  the  Midianite  children  be  saved  alive  while 
the  balance  of  the  people  are  exterminated.  Those  who  were  incorpo- 
rated had  to  undergo  ceremonial  purification,  and  thus  they  were  intro- 
duced to  the  church  by  a  sort  of  infant  baptism.  Of  course,  this  indicated 
that  they  had  access  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  church,  and 
God's  purpose  must  have  embraced  them  equally  with  the  Jews  themselves 
in  his  plan  of  salvation.  This  shows  that  salvation  was  not  intended 
from  the  first  to  be  confined  to  the  Jews,  and  that  God  was  ready  to 
save  at  this  time  as  many  of  the  heathen  as  could  be  reached  without 
the  overthrow  of  his  plans  for  building  up  a  church  which  should  in  time 
be  commissioned  to  proclaim  his  salvation  to  the  world.  His  extension 
of  such  privileges  to  the  heathen  children  does  not  lose  its  moral  signifi- 
cance by  the  fact  that  only  females  were  included.  It  goes  to  show 
that  God  did  not  discriminate  against  the  heathen  children  simply  because 
they  were  heathen  children,  and  this  is  what  the  advocate  of  "elect 
infants"  insists  upon  doing.  There  is  no  reason  then,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  why  God  should  confine  his  salvation  to  the  infants  of  the 
church  to  the  exclusion  of  the  heathen.  These  heathen  children,  although 
not  born  with  any  right  to  baptism,  were  purified  along  with  the  men 
of  war  who  took  them  to  adopt  them  into  their  families.  Since  the 
church  stands  for  salvation,  may  not  the  incident  be  considered  typical  of 
God's  granting  salvation  to  the  heathen  cliildren? 

DEUTERONOMY  31  :  i^.  U- 

This  conclusion  is  rendered  more  probable  by  Deut.  31  :  12,  13, 
bv  which  those  who  were  old  enough  to  learn  might  receive  instruction 
in  the  truth  of  God.  Once  every  seven  years,  in  the  year  of  release  in 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  all  the  people  were  to  be  assembled  to  hear  the 
law  read,  and  all  the  sojourners,  were  to  be  thus  assembled  "that  they  may 
hear,  and  that  they  may  learn  and  fear  Jehovah  your  God.  and  observe  to 
do  all  the  words  of  this  law.  and  their  children  who  have  not  known, 
may  hear  and  learn  to  fear  Jehovah  your  God."  Here  is  the  separate 
mention  of  the  children,  announcing  a  special  reference  in  this  meeting 
to  them.     He  designed  that  they  should  learn  the  truth  to  their  salvation. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  85 

We  cannot  say  that  God  had  a  care  for  only  those  who  were  old  enough 
to  be  instructed,  and  why  should  not  we  learn  from  this  passage  his  gen- 
eral care  for  heathen  children?  Must  he  not  take  care  of  the  dying 
infants  of  the  heathen  just  as  he  takes  care  of  the  same  class  connected 
with  the  church  ? 

God's  care  for  the  heathen  children  is  again  taught  by  a  passage  in 
Jonah.  God  reasons  against  the  prophet  Jonah,  who  was  grievously  dis- 
appointed that  his  prophesied  destruction  of  the  city  had  not  taken  place. 
He  had  evidently  taken  God's  message  too  literally,  and  was  more  con- 
cerned for  his  own  reputation  as  a  prophet  than  he  was  in  the  conversion 
of  Nineveh.  Jonah's  "gourd"  having  perished,  he  was  made  to  feel  and 
manifest  a  very  great  regard  for  his  own  comfort,  so  much  so  that  God 
uses  this  as  a  means  of  bringing  home  to  him  his  own  selfishness  and 
inconsistency.  "And  should  not  I  have  regard  for  Nineveh,  that  great 
city,  wherein  are  more  than  six  score  thousand  persons  that  cannot  dis- 
cern between  their  right  hand  and  their  left  hand?"  By  "persons  that 
cannot  discern  between  their  right  hand  and  their  left"  is  indicated  infants 
of  tender  years  who  had  no  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  This  saying 
clearly  implies  that  they  were  not  accountable  for  the  general  wicked 
condition  of  the  city,  and  if  they  were  not  accountable,  how  can  it  be 
conceived  that  had  the  destruction  of  the  city  actually  taken  place  and 
they  had  been  involved  in  the  general  destruction,  they  would  have  been 
held  to  a  final  account  as  sinners.  If  not  accountable  before  the  destruc- 
tion, how  could  they  be  accountable  after  it?  Of  course,  their  exemption 
from  condemnation  would  not  be  a  complete  account  of  their  salvation, 
for  sin  is  not  merely  a  liability  to  punishment,  but  a  condition  of  death, 
but  God  intervenes  in  behalf  of  the  little  ones  to  give  them  life.  If  this 
lesson  of  the  exemption  of  the  infants,  so  strikingly  impressed  upon 
Jonah,  had  been  properly  appreciated  by  the  world,  we  should  have  an 
end  to  those  false  interpretations  of  the  second  commandment  which 
makes  them  to  be  held  accountable  for  the  fathers'  sins.  But  God's 
promise  to  take  care  of  the  little  ones  is  definitely  made  in  our  next 
passage. 

ZECHERIAH  13:  /. 

"Awake.  O  my  sword,  against  my  shepherd,  and  (rather  even)  against 
the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts:  smite  the  shepherd 
and  the  sheep  will  be  scattered,  but  I  will  turn  my  hand  to  (or  towards) 
the  little  ones."  Here  we  have  a  prophecy  of  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice 
introduced  in  advance  of  the  prophecy  of  judgment  upon  the  wicked 
and  going  to  account  for  the  fact  that  judgment  would  not  fall  upon  the 
whole  people.  We  read,  "but  the  third  shall  be  left  therein."  Before 
pronouncing  this  judgment  it  is  specially  declared  that  the  little  ones  are 
not  included.  Therefore,  the  third  which  escapes  the  threatened  judgment 
cannot  include  the  little  ones.  Since,  however,  this  prophecy  is  of  judg- 
ment upon  the  wicked  as  such,  the  exemption  of  the  little  ones  places  them 
amongst  the  saved.     Will  it  be  said  that  the  prophecy  has  reference  to  an 


86  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

earthly  judgment  because  it  says,  "In  all  the  land  two  parts  shall  be  cut  off 
and  die."  The  answer  is,  this  is  not  sufficient  to  show  that  any  literal, 
natural  destruction  is  meant,  the  reference  to  refining  the  third  part  in  the 
fire  as  silver  shows  that  it  is  to  be  taken  as  strictly  figurative  and  as  hav- 
ing reference  to  salvation.  This  being  the  case,  the  exemption  of  the  little 
ones  is  a  direct  prophecy  of  their  salvation,  and  it  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  it  is  the  little  ones  out  of  the  wicked  that  are  expressly  excepted. 
If  this  is  not  a  declaration  that  the  dying  infants  of  the  heathen  will  be 
saved,  it  will  be  impossible  to  furnish  anything  to  satsify  the  advocates 
of  the  infant  damnation  of  the  heathen  children.  This  passage  should  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  those  in  Matt.  18  and  19,  for  it  shows  that  the 
doctrine  of  infant  salvation  contained  in  those  declarations  of  the  Saviour 
was  an  ancient  doctrine  instead  of  being  new  or  strange. 

ISAIAH  40:   ir. 

In  connection  with  the  passage  in  Zecheriah  should  be  studied  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  40:  11,  which  seems  to  be  a  definite  declaration  of 
Christ's  attitude  as  Saviour  towards  the  little  ones. 

It  is  true  that  Dr.  Alexander  sees  in  it  a  broader  scope  embracing 
God's  care  over  his  people  in  Old  Testament  times,  but  the  context  is 
strongly  in  favor  of  its  definite  reference  to  Christ  in  his  character  of 
Saviour.  This  seems  to  be  beyond  doubt  when  it  is  reflected  that  the 
message  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  messenger  is  the  advent  of  God  him- 
self. The  advent  of  Christ  the  God-man  was  the  only  fulfilment  of  such 
prophecy.  According  to  John  the  evangelist,  there  could  be  no  other : 
"No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time,  the  only  begotten  God  (critical 
text)  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  (manifested) 
him."  (See  Westcott  and  Hort.)  He  was  announced  by  John's  peculiar 
message,  "Behold  Johovah  cometh,"  and  "Behold  your  God."  This  cor- 
responds with  the  apostle's  statement  in  the  very  beginning  that  the  Word 
was  God,  and  with  John  the  Baptist's  testimony,  "This  is  the  Son  of  God."' 

The  fact  that  our  passage  is  John's  message  is  obscured  by  the  neglect 
of  the  Hebrew  genitive  (construct  state).  The  speaker  in  v:  9  is  "the 
evangelist  of  Zion,"  not  "the  teller  of  good  tidings  to  Zion."  "Evangelist"' 
corresponds  exactly  with  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word,  and  it  is  the 
only  single  English  word  that  does.  The  evangelist  of  Zion  was  directed 
to  "get  up  into  a  high  mountain"  that  from  this  exalted  pulpit  he  might 
proclaim  the  world-wide  message  announcing  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  It 
is  true  it  was  to  be  announced  first  to  the  "cities  of  Judah,"  but  it  is  also 
true  that  it  was  the  same  message  spoken  of  in  verse  third  in  its  world- 
wide aspect.  "The  voice  of  one  that  crieth.  Prepare  ye  in  the  wilderness 
the  way  of  Jehovah,  make  level  (or  straight)  in  the  desert  a  highway 
for  our  God."  It  was  intended  that  "all  flesh"  should  behold  the  revealed 
glory  of  Jehovah.  Of  this  Jehovah,  who  can  be  none  other  than  the 
Christ,  it  is  said  :  "He  will  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd  (or  shepherd 
his  flock),   he  will  gather  the  lambs  in  his  arms  and   carry  them  in  his 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  87 

bosom."  His  gathering  the  lambs  in  his  arms  and  carrying  them  in  his 
bosom  expresses  the  tenderest  personal  care  for  the  little  ones.  It  clearly 
implies  infant  salvation,  and  yet  they  tell  us  the  Bible  is  silent  on  this 
subject. 

THE  WORDING  OF  THE  CLAUSE. 

The  elect  infant  clause  should  be  changed  in  its  wording  so  as  to 
express  clearly  a  belief  in  general  infant  salvation.  The  word  "elect" 
will  have  to  be  dropped,  for  it  is  in  its  nature  a  limiting  word  when 
used,  as  generally  understood,  to  draw  a  line  in  the  class  of  dying  infants. 
It  seems  more  natural  to  take  "elect"  as  a  characterization  of  the  whole 
of  the  two  exceptional  classes  of  dying  infants  and  idiots,  but  this  has 
not  been  the  accepted  view,  and  any  other  use  of  elect  necessarily  implies 
the  counterpart  of  the  non-elect  element  of  these  same  classes.  It  is 
impossible  to  use  a  limiting  word  without  drawing  limits,  that  is,  making 
a  division  in  these  classes.  The  only  remedy,  therefore,  is  to  omit  the 
word.  But  in  some  other  way  it  must  be  indicated  that  these  classes  are 
treated  of  in  this  chapter  as  divisions  of  the  elect,  for  it  takes  these  to 
make  the  number  of  the  elect  complete.  Moreover,  they  are  exceptional 
classes  because  not  included  in  the  first  statement  concerning  all  the  elect 
effectually  called  "by  his  word  and  Spirit."  Section  3,  as  it  stands,  is  a  sav- 
ing clause  which  is  necessary  to  make  the  first  statement  accurate,  because 
it  is  not  true  that  God  effectually  calls  by  his  word  and  Spirit  "all  those 
whom  he  predestinated  unto  life'.'  The  two  classes  in  question  are  saved 
without  the  word,  and  without  the  outward  call.  This  should  be  stated 
in  immediate  connection  with  the  first  statement,  if  that  is  allowed  to 
stand  unmodified,  instead  of  being  placed  in  the  third  section  where  its 
relation  to  section  one  is  lost  sight  of.  It  might  be  stated  thus  :  "The 
whole  number  of  the  elect  embraces  two  classes  who  are  incapable  of 
being  called  by  the  word,  namely,  infants  dying  in  infancy,  and  older  per- 
sons born  with  impaired  intellects.  These  are  saved  by  the  Spirit  alone 
in  regeneration,  who  is  just  as  able  to  work  this  change  without  means 
as  with  the  aid  of  outward  instrumentalities."  This  gives  a  more  definite 
description  than  to  say  that  they  are  incapable  of  the  outward  call.  To 
say  that  they  are  "born  with  impaired  intellects"  shuts  out  the  criminally 
insane.  If  idiots  are  not  to  be  directly  named,  the  designation  should 
be  sufficiently  specific  to  be  easily  understood.  Besides  this,  the  method 
of  their  salvation  by  a  direct  application  of  the  Spirit's  saving  work 
should  be  stated,  for  this  is  the  principal  part  of  the  statement.  To  say 
that  they  are  "saved  by  the  Spirit"  is  not  sufficiently  definite.  Since 
the  Spirit  must  give  the  life  to  infants  just  as  to  adults,  in  advance  of 
faith  and  repentance  of  which  these  are  the  expression,  there  is  no 
excuse  for  the  indefinite  phrase,  "worketh  when  and  where  and  how  he 
pleaseth." 

If  it  is  thought  best  to  treat  these  exceptional  classes  in  a  separate  sec- 
tion, it  should  be  brought  into  immediate  connection  by  the  omission 
of  section  two  which  contains  no  new  matter  except  the  easily  misunder- 


88  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

stood  statement  that  men  are  "passive"  under  the  call.  It  rests  upon  a 
false  analogy  comparing  the  spiritual  life  to  a  new  creation  in  a  literal 
sense.  But  the  spiritual  life  is  not  a  literal  creation  but  the  renovation 
of  the  moral  dispositions,  and  to  speak  of  being  thus  renovated  while 
passive  is  to  talk  in  contradictory  language.  How  can  a  body  be  rightly 
disposed  without  being  disposed  at  all?  This  is  to  talk  nonsense.  This 
language  should  be  eliminated  because  it  is  generally  misunderstood  as 
excluding  any  acting  of  the  human  spirit;  and  this  is  false. 

DR.  WEBB'S  INTERPRETATION  AND  ANALYSIS. 

By  way  of  giving  emphasis  to  the  necessity  for  eliminating  "elect" 
as  a  characterization  of  dying  infants,  let  us  examine  Dr.  Webb's  treat- 
ment of  this  question.  On  page  284  of  his  Theology  of  Infant  Salva- 
tion, he  makes  a  classification  of  (a)  elect  infants,  and  (b)  non-elect 
infants.  Since  this  covers  the  whole  of  humanity,  the  term  elect  infants 
is  made  equivalent  to  the  elect  in  general,  and,  therefore,  the  word 
"infants"  has  no  significance.  It  might  just  as  well  be  left  out,  because 
infants  are  persons,  and  "elect  persons,"  or  simply  "the  elect,"  would  be 
a  more  natural  expression  of  this  thought.  If  "elect  infants"  in  the 
Confession  stood  by  itself,  this  would  be  perhaps  a  possible  interpreta- 
tion, but  such  is  not  the  case.  "Dying  in  infancy"  is  the  description  of 
a  particular  class  of  infants,  all  others  being  left  out  of  the  thought; 
and  elect  as  a  further  modification  of  the  idea  makes  a  division  of  this 
class  into  elect  and  non-elect.  The  terms  by  this  restriction  take  on  an 
entirely  different  meaning  from  the  purely  abstract  and  broad  division 
which  Dr.  Webb  attributes  to  Calvinism.  It  is  useless  to  introduce  the 
term  Calvinism  here  as  a  term  to  juggle  with,  for  Theology  in  general 
makes  no  such  division.  There  is  no  call  for  such  division  of  mankind 
at  the  time  of  infancy. 

To  say  that  "elect  infants,"  whatever  comprehension  the  term  may 
have,  share  the  atonement,  and  regeneration  goes  without  saying.  Since 
the  election  spoken  of  is  an  election  to  salvation,  it  goes  without  saying 
that  they  are  saved  in  the  only  way  that  men  can  be  saved.  These  add 
nothing  to  the  analysis  or  interpretation.  Now  our  author  goes  on  to 
say:  "The  critic  of  the  Calvinist  insistently  and  naggingly  asks  the 
question.  What  would  be  the  final  fate  of  an  infant  in  class  (b),  if  he 
should  die  in  infancy?  Not  waiting  for  the  Calvinist  to  reply,  that  the 
question  is  purely  hypothetical  and  impossible,  the  critic  answers  his  own 
question  by  announcing  to  the  world,  (a)  that  Calvinism  admits  that 
some  non-elect,  non-redeemed,  non-regenerated  infants  die  in  their 
infancy,  and  (b)  that  Calvinists  teach  that  there  are  'infants  in  hell  a 
span  long.'  This  puts  into  the  critic's  mouth  something  which  he  never 
thought  of,  much  less  asked,  for  he  goes  on  no  such  analysis  and  under- 
standing of  'elect  dying  infants.'  If  elect'  infants  die  infants,  how  can 
the  conclusion  be  reached  that  the  non-elect  class  necessarily  lives  on? 
This   is   a   now   sequitur.      Therefore,    this    dodge   is   unavailing,    and   the 


CONFESSIOXAL  REV  IS  10  X.  89 

question  is  not  one  of  analysis  but  of  interpretation  as  to  what  is  meant 
by   "elect   infants   dying  in   infancy?'" 

This  attempted  dodge  of  the  Calvinist  is  in  conflict  with  the  preceding 
context  in  section  one,  which  speaks  of  the  whole  of  the  elect  as  persons 
called  by  the  word.  What  would  be  the  propriety  of  making  a  second 
reference  to  the  same  division  of  humanity  under  the  designation  of 
elect  infants?  Again,  if  dying  infants  are  all  elect,  where  is  the  utility 
of  such  a  classification?  Then,  why  not  acknowledge  that  only  those 
who  die  in  infancy  are  styled  "elect  infants"?  Nobody  knows  that  any 
others  are  such  when  infants,  why  talk  about  something  we  know  nothing 
about?  If  Calvinists  teach  that  "as  a  matter  of  fact  no  reprobate  infant 
does  or  can  die  in  its  infancy,"  then  clearly  only  those  who  do  die  at  this 
stage  of  life  should  be  termed  "elect  infants."  Otherwise  the  word 
"infants"  has  no  significance. 

Dr.  Webb  says:  "Of  elect  infants,  some  die  in  infancy  and  some  grow 
to  maturity."  Then  says  that  the  former  are  saved  "because  they  were 
elected  by  the  Father"  and  "that  they  would  have  believed  .  .  .  had 
they  lived  to  moral  maturity."  All  this  is  beside  the  mark,  and  is  simply 
truism  if  known  to  be  elect.  He  says,  p.  285  :  "Of  reprobate  infants  it  is 
held  (a),  that  none  of  this  class  die  in  infancy,  but  (b)  that  they  all  come 
to  maturity  and  express  the  evil  that  is  in  them  by  sundry  voluntary  and 
conscious  acts  of  transgression." 

But  the  trouble  is,  this  is  the  author's  own  gratuitous  supposition  which 
he  gives  nothing  to  sustain.  The  only  hint  that  he  here  gives  of  the 
mental  process  by  which  he  arrives  at  his  conclusion  is  found  on  the  fol- 
lowing page  (286),  where  he  tells  us  there  "must  be  a  difference  between 
the  death  of  a  conscious  and  an  unconscious  being."  This  means  that 
he  simply  assumes  the  point  which  he  wishes  to  prove;  this,  after  boldly 
acknowledging  that  the  burden  of  proof  rested  upon  him.  What  follows 
shows  that  by  "unconscious"  he  means  an  inability  to  apprehend  the 
meaning  of  penal  suffering.  Since  we  have  before  spoken  of  this  attempted 
explanation,  we  need  not  repeat  it  here.  The  hypothesis  that  there  can 
be  no  penalty  inflicted  upon  those  who  are  unable  to  understand  its  nature, 
is  itself  a  gratuitous  supposition  offered  to  support  another  supposition. 
This  is  the  flimsy  logic  by  which  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  is  sus- 
tained in  this  pretentious  work.  It  reminds  one  of  the  saying  of  the  Latin 
poet,  "The  mountains  laboured  and  a  ridiculous  mouse  was  brought 
forth." 

But  the  negative  argument  by  which  the  author  of  the  Theology  of 
Infant  Salvation  tries  to  avoid  the  implication  of  non-elect  dying  infants 
is  equally  unsatisfactory.  On  page  309  he  tells  us  that  "All  anti-Calvinists 
assail  it  (the  elect  infant  clause)  as  grossly  incorrect  in  fact,  and  fiercely 
arraign  it  as  implicating  that  some  non-elect  infants  die  in  infancy  and 
finally  perish."  He  contends  that  they  reach  this  result  "by  playing  upon 
the  phraseology  of   this  great   document." 

His  answer  is  contained  in  three  so-called  "installments,"  but  instead 
of  being  separate  points  they  are  all  virtually  one  and  the  same,  which  con- 


90  INFANT,  SALVATION  AND 

sists  of  a  denial  of  the  correctness  of  the  inference.     If  it  is  a  neces- 
sary inference  it  is  both  correct  and  "legitimate."     Here  again  we  have 
merely    a     repetition     of     unsupported     assertions.       His     first     assertion 
is   that   the    inference   charged   against   the    confessional   clause   is   "their 
own  inference."     This  means,  of  course,  that  it  is  incorrect  and  not  such 
as  a  sound  reasoner  would  draw.     This  is  a  pretty  bold  statement  since 
he    himself    says    above    that    "all    anti-Calvinists"    draw    this    conclusion. 
His  claim,  therefore,  is  that  only  Calvinists  have  discernment  enough  to 
understand  the  language,  and  logical  power  enough  to  draw  a  correct  con- 
clusion from  it.     It  would  hardly  be  possible  to  make  a  more  conceited 
claim,    or  a  more   self-destructive   contention.     Not   any   more   powerful 
argument   for  revision  of  the  clause  can  be  constructed  than  his  asser- 
tion that  nobody  but  Calvinists  can  understand  the  language.     What  is  a 
creed  for  but  to  make  other  people  understand  what  we  believe.     If  they 
can't  understand  our  language,  common  sense  dictates  that  the  very  pur- 
pose of  a  creed  cries  out  against  the  retention  of  such  language.     It  makes 
comparatively    little    difference   whether    the    claim   that    it    is    incorrectly 
understood  be  true  or  not,   the  stubborn   fact  which  is  acknowledged  by 
Dr.  Webb  himself  is,  that  it  is  not  understood  as  conveying  the  meaning 
desired.     His   claim  in   this   connection   that  "The   text   of   the   document 
nowhere  from  beginning  to  end  asserts  that  any  non-elect  infants  die  in 
infancy,"    is   just    another   way   of    asserting   that   nobody   but    Calvinists 
can   understand  the  language.     The  repetition  which   is   contained  in  the 
assertion  that  the  "confession  is  absolutely  silent  everywhere  about  non- 
elect  infants"  is  nothing  more  than  the  impertinent  assertion  that  nobody 
but  Calvinists  can  draw  an  inference.     This  ignores  the  fact  that  many 
Calvinists   themselves  see   and   acknowledge  the  justice  of   the   inference. 
We  answer  the  assertion  by  the  counter-assertion  that  if  "elect"  limit  the 
class  spoken  of,  it  is  not  merely  a  correct  but  a  necessary  inference  from 
the  singling  out  of  an  elect  class  of  dying  infants.     It  of  necessity  creates 
in  the  mind  the  conception  of  the  remainder  of  the  broad  class  of  dying 
infants  which  by  antithesis  must  be  the  non-elect  just  as  certainly  as  they 
failed  to  participate  in  the  election.    This  places  the  emphasis  upon  "elect" 
while  "dying  in  infancy"  is  taken  in  the  attributive  or  explanatory  sense, 
making  the  phrase  equivalent  to  "elect  dying  infants."     Of   course,   if  a 
certain  number  of  dying  infants  are  exclusively  chosen  to  salvation,  the 
balance   are   not   so  chosen   and   are  non-elect   and  not   saved.     The  only 
question  then  concerns  the  use  of  the  word  "elect,"  whether  it  is  employed 
to   limit   the   subject,    namely,    dying   infants,    or   whether   it   be   intended 
as  an  attributive  of  the  whole  class  of  dying  infants.     The  other  inter- 
pretation which  is  so  common  and  which  is  adopted  by  Dr.  Webb  we  can- 
not  regard  as   at   all   tenable.     It  takes  "dying  in  infancy"   as   a  limiting 
phrase  which  marks  out  a  smaller  number  from  the  larger  class  of  "elect 
infants,"  the  latter  being  taken  as  equivalent  to  "the  elect."     This  appears 
to    the   writer   to   be    exceedingly   unnatural    and    untenable,    because    the 
designation  of  the  whole  of  the  elect  as  "infants"  is  little  short  of  absurd. 
Why  use  the  word   at  all   when  "the  elect"  would  express  it  both  more 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  91 

clearly  and  more  elegantly.  We  see  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that 
the  phrase  dying  in  infancy  is  used  in  an  explanatory  sense  to  indicate 
what  is  meant  by  "elect  infants."  There  is  no  propriety  in  speaking  of 
grown  people  as  "elect  infants,"  but  it  is  very  natural  that  having  used  the 
term  "elect  infants"  it  should  be  immediately  guarded  from  misunder- 
standing by  definition. 

Dr.  Webb's  third  so-called  "installment,"  in  which  he  seeks  to  show 
that  the  inference  of  non-elect  infants  is  illegitimate  because  the  section 
designs  to  explain  the  method  of  infant  salvation,  is  beside  the  mark.  It 
has  no  pertinency  to  the  case.  The  question  of  who  are  spoken  of  as  being 
saved,  and  the  question  of  how  these  are  saved,  are  entirely  separate 
questions. 

Such  a  perspicacious  thinker  as  R.  L.  Dabney  perceived  clearly  that 
no  attempted  explanation  can  give  relief  from  the  charge  of  teaching 
possible  infant  damnation;  and  so,  in  his  review  of  Bledsoe,  he  devotes 
considerable  space  to  defending  the  justice  of  infant  damnation, — how 
successfully  need  not  here  be  pronounced  upon.  But  while  Dabney  thought 
the  Bible  silent  on  universal  infant  salvation,  and  while  he,  therefore, 
sought  to  justify  infant  damnation,  he  winds  up  his  discussion  of  this 
question  by  the  statement  that  "No  man  can  prove  from  the  Scriptures 
that  any  infant,  even  dying  a  pagan,  is  lost."  We  say,  then,  by  parity  of 
reasoning  nobody  can  prove  that  there  is  an  elect  class  of  dying  infants. 
And  if  so,  when  we  talk  about  a  special  limited  class  of  dying  infants, 
we  talk  about  something  we  know  nothing  about. 

Dabney  tried  very  hard  to  avoid  the  charge  of  Bledsoe  against  the 
supralapsarian  divines  of  the  Calvinistic  school,  of  teaching  infant  damna- 
tion, but  his  defense  by  which  he  seeks  to  make  the  whole  brunt  of  this 
charge  fall  upon  Gomarus  and  Twisse  to  the  relief  of  the  Confession,  is 
not  successful.  It  matters  little  that  Turretin  has  opposed  such  "ultraisms," 
the  Confession  is  unhappily  inconsistent  with  itself,  for  some  .of  its  most 
objectionable  statements  have  a  suparlapsarian  ring,  and  undoubtedly  had 
their  origin  in  the  supralapsarian  Lambeth  confession.  But  without  press- 
ing this  matter,  it  may  be  said  that  the  implication  of  possible  infant 
damnation  itself  involves  the  supralapsarian  theory,  for  if  God  consigns 
to  perdition  a  great  part  of  the  human  race  before  they  become  of  intelli- 
gence to  understand  the  invitations  of  the  gospel,  are  they  not  in  effect 
created  to  be  damned?  The  short  way  and  best  way  to  put  an  end  to  all 
such  charges  and  implications  is  to  change  the  wording  of  the  clause. 


REVISION  OF  CHAPTER  SEVEN. 

In  connection  with  our  study  of  the  covenant  of  works,  attention  W9S 
called  to  the  very  general  sense  in  which  the  word  covenant  is  used  in 
chapter  7  of  the  Confession.  And  besides  this,  the  apparent  dis- 
crepancy between  the  correct  statement  of  the  Larger  Catechism  and  that 
of  the  Confession  itself  was  pointed  out.     This  want  of  harmony,  and  the 


Cj2  INFANT  SAU'ATION  AND 

ambiguity  which  gives  rise  to  the  theological  conception  of  the  covenant 
of  works,  should  be  remedied.     It  is  of  little  worth  to  remedy  the  elect 
infant    clause    while    leaving    other    and    more    far-reaching    errors    or 
ambiguities   in   the    Confession.     Let   us   see   how   the   confessional   state- 
ment of  chapter  seven  might  be  harmonized  with  the   superior  statement 
of  the  Larger  Catechism.     It  was  said  in  the  early  part  of  this  discussion 
that  tlie   Larger   Catechism  used  the  word  "covenant"  in   the,  sense  of   a 
dispensation  of  God's  providence.     We  might  say  that  it  is  identified  with 
the  law  itself  as  a  dispensation  of  Providence.    Question  97  speaks  of  the 
regenerate  as  "delivered  from  the  moral  law  as  a  covenant  of  works  so 
as  they  are  thereby  neither  justified  or  condemned."     It  must  be  admitted, 
therefore,  that  the  covenant    here  is  the  law  considered  as  a  rule  of  life. 
The  language  is  somewhat  misleading,  implying  as  it  seems  to  do,  that  for 
the  world  it  was  ofifered  as  a  means  of  justification  or  of  condemnation, 
which  is  not  true,  because,  as  we  have  insisted,  it  never  was  offered  as 
a  means  of    (final)   justification.     But  the  point  is  now  that  law  in  this 
aspect  is  termed  indescriminately   a  "covenant  of  works"   and  a  "cove- 
nant of  life."     The  section  then  goes  on  to  explain  other  purposes  in  the 
giving  of  the  law,   which  go  to  emphasize  its  providential   character.     It 
is  this  providential  aspect  which  justified,  if  anything  can,  the  use  of  the 
word  "covenant."    If  now  it  is  clearly  recognized  that  this  is  the  perfectly 
general  use  of  the  word  which  does  not  conflict  with  its  special  use  of  a 
promise   to   which   God   attaches   his   oath,   no   harm   can  be   done   by  its 
use.     That  the  Confession  itself  uses  "covenant  of  works"  in  the  sense 
of  "dispensation  of  law,"  like  the  Larger  Catechism  is  clear   from  Sec. 
6,  Ch.  19,  which  employs  the  same  language  as  that  of  Qu.  97,  except  that 
the    phrase,    "to   be   thereby   justified    or    condemned,"    carries    still    more 
clearly   the    objectionable    inference,    that    it    is    offered   to    the    world    in 
general  as  a  means  of  final  justification.      (To  avoid  this,   "continually" 
should  be  added  before  "justified.")     The  impression  is  strengthened  by 
the  statement  in  Sec.  2,  Ch.  7,  that  "therein  life  was  promised  to  Adam, 
and  in  him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect  and  personal  obedi- 
ence."     It    doubtless    only    means   that    life    was    assured   to    Adam    and 
similarly  to  every  member  of  the  race,  so  long  as  perfect  obedience  was 
rendered.      But   the   word   "promised"    gives    rise   to   the    idea   of    future 
instead  of  present  reward,  and  creates  the  impression  that  "eternal  life 
or  a  condition  of  indefectibility  is  meant.     The  inference  is  unwarranted 
and  erroneous  and  should  be  avoided.     This  can  be  easily  done  by  sub- 
stituting "assured"  for  "promised,"  at  the  same  time  striking  out  "in  him." 
"Through  him"  would  be  correct  perhaps,  but  both  are  superfluous  and  had 
better  be  left  out.     Only  one  other  change,  and  that  is  the  insertion  of 
"perpetual."      This    makes    the    harmony    perfect    and    puts    the    section 
beyond  criticism. 

Section  three  should  be  corrected  also.  The  expression,  "made  himself 
incapable  of  life,"  is  not  happy  as  expressing  the  condition  subsequent  to 
the  fall.  It  is  not  accurate  any  more  than  to  say  that  the  suicide  has 
made  himself  incapable  of  life.     "Incapable"  is  not  the  word  to  describe 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  93 

a  condition  of  deatli.  it  is  nonsense.  It  should  read  '"Man  having  by  his 
fall  brought  himself  into  a  condition  of  spiritual  death,  etc." 

But  more  serious  still  is  the  criticism  to  be  made  of  the  last  statement 
of  Sec.  3.  which  apparently  confines  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
"those  that  are  ordained  unto  life."  This  is  not  the  language  of  Scripture, 
which  specially  promises  the  Holy  Spirit  "to  them  that  ask  him."  Luke 
11:  13.  Even  though  it  should  turn  out  that  those  who  ask  are  precisely 
such  as  were  ordained  unto  life,  this  does  not  justify  the  substitution 
of  a  theological  for  a  scriptural  statement,  for  the  fact  that  they  come 
to  be  in  practice  the  same  is  not  by  any  means  apparent  to  all  those  to 
whom  the  promise  is  made,  for  it  is  intended  for  the  world  and  not  for 
an  unknown  limited  number.  But  perhaps  some  will  be  inclined  to  ask 
whether  the  confessional  statement  is  not  justified  by  Ezek.  26:  26,  27, 
which  is  given  as  a  proof-text  to  sustain  it.  We  do  not  think  so,  for 
while  it  is  true  that  regeneration  is  referred  to  in  the  promise  of  Ezekiel 
36,  it  is  also  true  that  it  was  spoken  to  the  natural  Israel  in  their  state 
of  apostasy,  therefore,  the  promise  was  intended  for  the  wicked  as  well 
as  the  righteous,  in  other  words,  for  the  natural  Israel  as  a  people  instead 
of  the  spiritual  Israel  as  such.  Therefore,  it  does  not  justify  the  confes- 
sional viewpoint,  but  just  the  reverse.  This  is  one  of  the  most  objection- 
able statements  in  the  whole  range  of  the  Confession.  By  all  means  let 
it   be  corrected. 

While  this  is  being  done  the  first  section  should  be  revised,  because  its 
statement  is  misleading  if  not  positively  untrue. 

How  can  the  distance  between  the  creature  and  God  be  a  barrier  to 
man's  enjoyment  of  God  unless  that  distance  be  conceived  as  a  moral 
one  caused  by  man's  fall?  If  this  is  what  is  meant  by  the  distance 
being  so  great,  we  must  say  that  the  language  is  so  indefinite  as  to  be 
misleading,  for  this  must  apply  first  to  the  state  before  the  fall,  and, 
therefore,  to  the  natural  relation.  In  this  view  of  the  matter  the  state- 
ment seems  to  be  a  gratuitous  piece  of  philosophy,  which  is  positively 
false.  On  the  other  hand,  must  it  not  be  necessarily  true  that  so  long 
as  man  maintained  his  holiness  he  must  have  enjoyed  his  correct  relation 
to  his  Creator  and  Lord.  But  sin  came  in  as  the  separating  force  which 
robbed  man  of  his  happiness  by  disturbing  his  relation  ot  God  and  his 
holy  law.  Holiness  would  itself  have  constituted  man's  "blessedness  and 
reward,"  just  as  sin  constituted  its  own  misery  and  punishment.  Further- 
more, the  word  "condescension"  is  too  indefinite  to  describe  the  attitude 
of  forbearance  and  grace  which  led  God  to  withhold  his  wrath  and 
devise  a  remedy  for  man  by  which  he  might  be  brought  back  to  his  estate 
of  happiness  and  holiness  by  being  restored  to  harmonious  relations  to 
God.  Then  to  say  that  God  was  "pleased  to  express  his  condescension 
by  way  of  covenant"  is  too  indefinite,  for  the  word  "covenant"  is  not 
easily  understood  without  definition,  as  we  know  by  experience  in  our 
church  in  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  theologians  define  it  in  a  very 
different  way  from  the  sense  intended  here.  \\'e  have  pointed  out  the  two 
separate   and   distinct   meanings,    and   yet   here   they   are   embraced   under 


94  IXFAXT  SALVATION  AXD 

the  single  word  "covenant"  in  the  abstract.  It  would  seem  that  the  first 
statement  should  confine  itself  to  the  administration  of  grace  after  the 
fall,  since  the  subject  is  not  creation  but  redemption.  Therefore,  no  need 
to  apply  the  word  "covenant"  to  the  relation  of  man  to  God  in  the 
Gardon  of  Eden  prior  to  the  fall.  This  would  avoid  the  confusion  of  two 
separate  meanings  of  the  same  word  in  close  connection  without  definition. 

DOES  GENERAL  INFANT  SALVATION  CONFLICT  WITH  THE 
DOCTRINE  OF  ELECTION? 

The  impression  exists  in  the  minds  of  some  who  have  undertaken  to 
write  on  the  subject  of  infant  salvation,  that  the  doctrine  of  universal 
infant  salvation  conflicts  with  the  doctrine  of  an  unconditional  election. 
This  is  a  mistake,  the  error  being  in  the  wrong  understanding  of  the 
word  "conditional."  This  leads  to  an  examination  of  the  clause  of  chapter 
three,  which  teaches  unconditional  election.  And  let  us  inquire  whether 
this  misunderstanding  as  to  the  relation  of  election  to  conditions  does 
not  grow  out  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  clause  in  question.  The  clause  reads: 
"Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may  or  can  come  to  pass  upon  all  sup- 
posed conditions,  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  anything  because  he  foresaw 
it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come  to  pass  upon  such  conditions." 
This  was  formulated  to  oppose  the  opposite,  or  supposedly  opposite, 
doctrine  of  conditional  election.  But  we  think  that  the  two  are  not  really 
opposite,  but  different  views  of  truth  which  are  not  really  in  conflict. 
What  is  meant  when  it  is  said  that  God  "hath  not  decreed  anything  be- 
cause he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come  to  pass  upon 
such  conditions."  The  conditions  are  such  as  have  relation  to  the  subject, 
and  the  meaning  is  that  God's  decree  of  election  does  not  wait  upon,  so 
as  to  be  shaped  by,  previously  conceived  conditions.  The  matter  is  at 
bottom  only  a  question  of  our  analysis  of  God's  thought.  Now,  while  it  is 
true  that  God's  purpose  to  effectuate  anything  must  come  first  in  thought, 
it  is  also  true  that  that  purpose  is  embodied  in  a  plan  which  is  compre- 
hensive and  takes  into  consideration  the  operation  of  all  the  second  causes 
which  come  into  the  working  of  the  plan.  This  is  really  all  that  the 
Arminian  contends  for — an  election  which  is  not  divorced  from  God's 
knowledge  of  second  causes.  To  speak  of  these  second  causes  as  "con- 
tingent," as  is  done  in  Sec.  i,  is  hardly  in  place  in  a  statement  which 
speaks  of  the  decree  from  God's  point  of  view.  Contingency  respects 
only  man's  viewpoint  and  imperfect  knowledge,  and  does  not  apply  to 
God's  knowledge  at  all.  It  would  be  better  probably  to  say  "nor  is  the 
place  and  influence  of  second  causes  taken  away  but  rather  established." 

It  would  be  well  to  exscind  Sec.  2  altogether,  for  it  is  really  in  con- 
flict with  Sec.  7,  which  tells  us  that  the  "rest  of  mankind,"  the  non- 
elect  wicked,  were  "ordained  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin."  If  we 
have  a  relative  or  conditional  reprobation,  why  should  election  take  no 
account  of  character?  And  yet  this  is  the  impression  that  is  made  upon 
the   uninitiated   by   Sec.    5   also,   which    speaks   of   the   "predestinated"    as 


CONFESSIONAL  REJISION.  95 

"chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  God's  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,"  "as  conditions  or 
causes  moving  him  from  thereunto."  This  is  the  practical  application 
of  the  statement  of  Sec.  2,  and  it  shows  how  misleading  is  the  purely 
abstract  view  of  the  decree.  The  phrase,  "chosen  in  Christ  unto  ever- 
lasting glory,"  appears  to  stand  for  salvation,  while  the  succeeding 
clauses  announce  that  it  proceeds  from  God's  love  without  any  foresight 
of  faith  or  good  works."  This  is  seemingly  a  perverted  view  of  salva- 
tion which  asserts  a  salvation  "without  faith  or  good  works."  This  is 
an  abstract  and  supposedly  philosophical  statement  of  election,  which  is 
misleading  because  it  is  so  different  from  the  scriptural  view  which  asserts 
that  God  hath  "chosen  us  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth."  This  is  the  practical  view  as  opposed  to 
the  abstract  and  philosophical  view. 

Since  section  i  treated  upon  the  subject  of  the  Decrees,  section  3 
ought  properly  to  treat  that  special  form  of  decree  termed  "election," 
but  it  is  introduced  with  the  rather  inappropriate  word  "predestina- 
tion." "Some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life." 
The  word  "foreordained"  is  used  in  connection  with  that  portion  of  the 
world  which  have  their  portion  in  "everlasting  death."  These  words 
might  well  exchange  places,  for  "foreordain"  is  the  word  which  corre- 
sponds to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  used  in  connection  with  the  sal- 
vation of  the  righteous.  It  is  so  translated  in  the  Revised  Version,  and  so 
it  may  well  now  displace  the  less  appropriate  word  "predestinate."  The 
word  "foreordain"  calls  to  mind  something  more  than  the  bare  fact  of 
the  purposed  end,  the  salvation  of  the  righteous.  It  reminds  us  that  the 
work  is  of  God,  who  by  his  arrangement  of  second  causes  and  the  super- 
intendence of  his  Holy  Spirit,  brings  about  the  desired  result.  But  "pre- 
destinate" is  better  used  in  connection  with  the  destiny  of  the  wicked, 
because  God  does  not  actively  decree  or  accomplish  their  adverse  attitude 
and  fate,  and  it  would  simply  express  the  fact  of  the  fate  which  they 
are  allowed  to  work  out  for  themselves.  The  persistent  cavil  against 
the  creed  on  this  matter  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  extremely  brief 
statement  of  election  which  does  not  make  such  necessary  distinction, 
and  the  failure  makes  a  false  impression  which  misrepresents  God,  for 
he  expressly  says :  "I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked." 
Therefore,  the  criticism  is  that  here  again  we  have  the  bare  bones  of 
theology,  instead  of  the  statement  of  practical  religion.  A  clear  distinc- 
tion should  be  made  between  God's  active  decree  to  give  a  blessing  and  his 
permissive  decree  to  permit  an  evil. 

The  following  is  suggested  as  a  scriptural  statement :  "Before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,^  God  purposed"  for  the  praise  of  the  glory  of 
his  grace,''  to  elect*  and  call"  certain  members  of  the  fallen  race  of  man° 
to  eternal  life,  by  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth,^ 
while  at  the  same  time  purposing  to  suffer  the  wicked,*  by  their  own 
self-will  and  rebellion,"  to  fit  themselves"  for  the  destruction  of  ungodly 


gt.  IXFAXT  SAW  ATI  ON  AND 

men/'  in  tlie  da\'  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment 
of  God."^^' 

Under  reference  i  quote  or  cite  Eph.  1:5:2  Thess.  2:  13;  Matt.  25:  34; 
John  17:  22,  24;  I  Pet.  i:  20;  Rev.  13;  8;  Rev.  17:  8;  Cf.  20:  15;  2 
Tim.  I  :  9. 

Ref.  2 — Eph.  3:  10,  II  ;  Eph.  I  :  9,  11  ;  Rom.  8:  28;  2  Tim.  i  :  9. 

Ref.  3 — Eph.  i:  6,  12,  14;  Rom.  3:  24-26;  Rom.  4:  10;  Rom.  5:  2, 
15,  17;  Luke  2:  30,  32;  cf.  Luke  2:  14:  Luke  19:  38;  Rom.  9:  23;  2  Cor. 
I  :  20 ;  2  Cor.  3  :  8,  9 ;  2  Cor.  4:15;  Phil,  i  :  11  ;  Col.  i  :  26.  27 ;  Rev.  19 :  7. 

Ref.  4 — Eph.  i:  4;  2  Thess.  2:  13;  Rom.  9:  11;  Rom.  11:  5,  7;  Matt. 
24;  22.  31;  Col.  3:  12;  Rom.  8:  33:  i  Pet.  1:2;  Gen.  17:  7;  Jer.  30:  22; 
Jer.  31  :  3- 

Ref.  5 — Rom.  8:  30;  2  Thess.  2:  14;  i  Cor.  i  :  24 ;  Rev.  17:  14;  i  Cor. 
1:9;  Heh.  9:  15. 

Ref.  6 — Rom.  9:  11,  16:  Rom.  8:  2/,  28;  cf.  v.  2^;  Isa.  48:  8-12;  Eph. 
I  :  4,  7;  2  Thess.  2 :  13,  14. 

Ref.  7 — 2  Thess.  2:  13;  Rom.  i  :  6,  7 ;  i  Cor.  1:2;  Jude.  i;  Rev.  17:  14; 
I  Pet.  i:  I,  2,  5;  John  17:  2,  3.  12;  John  6:  39.  40;  i  Pet.  2:  9;  Jer. 
30:  9- 

Ref.  8 — Acts  14:  16;  2  Pet.  2:  1-9;  Rom.  9 :  22 ;  Jude  4:  Jer.  30:  it; 
Isa.   14:  24-26;   Isa.  13:  11;   Isa.  51:  5,  6;  Jer.  50:  45;  Jer.  51:  7-9. 

Ref.  9 — Psalm  2;  Matt.  22:  5.  6. 

Ref.  10 — Rom.  9:  22;  Rom.  2:  8,  9;  2  Pet.  2:9,  10;  Rom.  2:5;  Rom. 
I  :   18-21. 

Ref.  II — 2  Pet.  3:  7.  9;  Rom.  2:  8. 

Ref.   12 — Rom.   2:   3. 

The  above  seems  to  be  a  fair  statement,  together  witii  abundant  cita- 
tions, of  the  doctrine  of  election,  together  with  God's  purpose  regarding 
the  persistently  disobedient  and  unbelieving  and  rebellious  subjects  of  his 
kingdom  who  despise  his  goodness  and  reject  his  offer  of  mercy.  The 
words,  "Before  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  quoted  from  Eph.  i  :  4, 
may  be  understood  of  an  absolute  past  eternity,  of  election  considered 
as  an  integral  part  of  the  Decrees ;  but  the  expression,  "purpose  to  elect 
and  call,"  preserves  the  proper  place  of  election  as  simply  a  part  of  the 
decree  to  be  placed  in  its  proper  relation  to  other  parts.  The  "call" 
naturally  goes  along  with  it,  for  this  is  the  method  of  carrying  out  the 
decree  of  election,  which  is  God's  purpose  to  save.  That  the  choice  is 
said  to  be  from  the  "fallen  race  of  man,"  preserves  the  proper  view-point 
as  sublapsarian  instead  of  supralapsarian,  and  this  the  Scriptures 
abundantly  support.  Or  perhaps  it  is  better  to  say  that  the  two  apparently 
conflicting  views  are  harmonized  in  the  only  true  way  of  making  them 
.conform  to  the  facts  of  God's  thought.  It  avoids  the  error  of  making 
God's  ultimate  design  obliterate  the  details  of  the  plan.  No  fault  can 
be  found  with  the  phraseology,  "purpose  to  elect  and  call,"  for  what  is 
God's  purpose  to  elect  l)ut  his  decree  to  make  an  actual  choice  out  of  a 
race  of  real  men.  just  as  he  calls  his  elect  out  of  an  existing  humanity. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  97 

Even  God  cannot  make  an  actual  choice  of  a  non-entity,  and  nobody  with 
common  sense  is  misled  by  the  apostle's  language  when  he  says :  "He 
chose  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  or  when  he  speaks 
of  grace  as  having  been  "given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  times  eternal," 
any  more  than  he  has  a  right  to  be  deceived  when  it  is  said  that  the 
"Lamb  was  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Peter  makes  the 
necessary  distinction  when  he  speaks  of  Christ  as  "foreknown,  indeed, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  manifested  at  the  end  of  the  times 
for  your  sake."  Paul  makes  the  above  distinction  when  he  speaks  of 
Christians  having  been  "called  according  to  his  purpose" ;  and  this  expres- 
sion justifies  the  language,  "purpose  to  call";  and  "purpose  to  elect" 
simply  makes  a  similar  distinction  between  God's  purpose  in  his  unit  plan 
and  election  which  must  logically  come  after  the  decree  or  purpose  to 
create  man  and  to  permit  his  fall,  not  to  speak  of  any  further  matters 
of  arrangement. 

The  phrase  "by  (instrumental  en)  or  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and 
belief  of  the  truth"  (2  Thess.  2:  13),  concerns  the  choice  of  election 
just  as  much  if  it  be  connected  grammatically  with  "salvation,"  as  if  it 
be  made  to  modify  "chose"  directly,  for  it  explains  that  the  salvation 
is  that  which  constitutes  the  matter  of  the  choice.  It  is,  therefore,  mani- 
festly incorrect  to  consider  election  purely  in  the  abstract,  as  section  5  does. 
The  statement  of  the  subject  above  made  so  agrees  with  the  facts  and  the 
teaching  of  Scripture  that  even  the  Arminian  will  hardly  be  able  to  say 
aught  against  it.  Moreover,  it  covers  the  whole  ground,  so  that  there  is 
no  place  for  either  sections  4  or  5. 

Sections  4  and  5  should  be  omitted  altogether,  for  both  are  ex- 
ceedingly misleading  and  objectionable.  Section  4  should  be  elimi- 
nated because  it  mixes  the  human  with  the  divine  viewpoint,  and  this 
works  confusion.  To  say  that  the  number  of  the  elect  is  "so  cetrain  and 
definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished,"  if  not  an  inane 
truism,  is  postively  false.  God's  purpose,  it  is  true,  lies  back  of  and 
secures  his  foreknowledge  of  men's  salvation.  It  would  be  just  as  sensi- 
ble to  speak  of  God's  foreknowledge  as  being  neither  increased  or  dimin- 
ished, as  to  make  his  assertion  regarding  his  purpose;  and  it  has  been 
already  sufficiently  explained  that  election  is  a  choice  of  individuals  or 
persons,   if   that   needs  explanation. 

The  difficulty  is  that  the  statement  starts  out  with  the  divine  view- 
point and  winds  up  with  the  human  viewpoint.  If  God's  purpose  concern- 
ing the  number  of  the  elect  could  be  changed  it  would  be  either  no 
purpose  at  all  or  he  would  be  defeated  in  effectuating  his  purpose.  Since 
God's  foreknowledge  goes  along  with  his  purpose,  it  is  needless  to  make 
the  assertion  that  his  foreknowledge  is  correct,  for  if  it  is  not  correct,  it 
isn't  foreknowledge  at  all.  If  it  is  foreknowledge,  of  course  it  cannot 
be  changed.  But  the  question  arises.  What  is  the  use  of  making  so  sense- 
less a  statement?  And  so,  a  fatalistic  result  is  reached  as  the  most 
plausible  solution,  that  it  is  intended  to  assert  that  it  matters  not  what 
second  causes  may  operate  or  what  men  may  do  or  not  do,  they  cannot 


gS  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

change  the  decree,  which  is  either  for  or  against  them ;  or  to  quote  the 
words  of  a  caviler  :  "You'll  be  damned  if  you  do,  and  you'll  be  damned 
if  you  don't."  This  is  positively  false,  and  a  caricature  of  the  gospel. 
This  misleading  statement  comes  to  us  from  the  Lambeth  articles,  and 
from  a  supralapsarian  source.  It  should  by  all  means  be  eliminated. 
There  is  no  good  in  it,  but  much  of  harm,  which  experience  shows  to  be 
very  real. 

The  fatalistic  impression  is  deepened  when  the  next  section  appears 
to  express  the  fatalism  in  other  language  and  to  assert  that  men  will 
be  saved  without  reference  to  their  characters,  "without  any  foresight  of 
faith  or  good  works,  or  perseverence  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other 
thing  in  the  creature  as  conditions  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto." 
This  is  from  the  same  mint  as  the  last,  and  is  the  product  of  a  false 
viewpoint  and  logic,  for  there  is  nothing  in  Scripture  which  justifies  such 
assertions.  It  is  a  perversion  of  the  Scriptures  resting  upon  an  evidently 
false  interpretation  of  Rom.  9:  11,  13.  16,  which  is  quoted  to  sustain 
it.  Paul  clearly  has  a  totally  different  object  in  view  when  he  makes 
his  observations  upon  the  case  of  Esau  and  Jacob.  He  does  attribute 
Jacob's  salvation  to  God's  foreknowledge  and  purpose,  such  being  pro- 
phetically declared  to  the  mother,  but  he  does  not  by  any  means  say  that 
the  fate  of  either  was  outside  the  operation  of  second  causes,  much  less 
that  it  was  irrespective  of  their  foreseen  characters.  The  very  opposite 
is  clear  from  the  Old  Testament  context  of  the  passage  quoted  from 
Malachi,  "Jacob  I  loved,  but  Esau  I  hated."  He  does  not  at  all  assert 
that  he  hated  Esau  irrespectively  of  his  character.  Such  statements  need 
to  be  cleared  out  of  the  Confession  at  the  earliest  possible  date. 

DOES  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GENERAL  INFANT  SALVATION 
CONFLICT  WITH  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT? 

By  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  meant  the  true  Scriptural  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement  as  it  regards  the  extent  of  the  atonement  or  the 
intent  of  Christ's  propitiation.  It  seems  evident  that  the  limited  view 
of  infant  salvation  is  encouraged,  and  perhaps  fostered,  by  a  limited 
atonement,  although  it  may  not  be  easy  to  show  that  the  two  things  are 
really  logically  connected.  It  does  not  logically  follow  from  a  limite',1 
atonement  which  confines  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death  to  the  elect  strictly, 
for  possibly  it  may  turn  out  that  all  dying  infants  are  of  the  elect,  as 
believers  in  infant  salvation  are  convinced  is  the  fact.  In  this  case  the 
limited  atonement  would  not  affect  them.  But  if  it  be  doubted  that  they 
are  all  elect,  and  this  is  the  position  of  the  doubters  concerning  universal 
infant  salvation,  then  the  idea  that  the  infants  of  the  heathen  may  be  lost 
is  encouraged  by  the  opinion  that  Christ's  atonement  is  strictly  limited  to 
the  elect.  If  because  non-elect  the  class  in  question  has  no  interest  in 
the  atonement,  of  course  it  is  the  more  certain  that  such  infants  are  lost. 
The  conclusion  thus  rests  upon  a  supposition  which  is  doubtful.  But 
this  indirect  aid  or  encouragement  which  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation 
receives  must  be  regarded  as  in  practice  not  inconsiderable. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  99 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  treatise  to  review  the  Confession  and  point 
out  all  the  matters  which  call  for  revision,  but  to  call  attention  only  to 
those  which  are  connected  with  the  particular  question  of  revision  which 
is  already  before  the  church.  The  limits  of  this  treatise  have  about  been 
reached,  and  the  treatment  of  this  last  question  must  be  brief.  Fortunatelj', 
the  matter  of  atonement  is  raised  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession, 
and  in  the  section  next  following  the  one  last  examined,  namely,   Sec.  6. 

There  can  be  no  objection  to  the  first  sentence  of  section  6.  Indeed, 
here  is  the  word  "foreordained"  used  in  the  very  sense  contended  for 
in  section  3,  covering  all  the  means  of  salvation.  This  is  the  scrip- 
tural view  which  follows  up  the  decree  of  election  with  the  purpose  to  use 
the  necessary  means  to  accomplish  the  desired  end.  The  criticism  con- 
cerns mainly,  if  not  exclusively,  the  last  sentence  which  clearly  uses' 
"redeemed"  in  the  sense  of  the  atonement  or  propitiation,  and  expressly 
limits  the  efifects  of  this  to  the  elect.  It  is  not  denied  for  one  moment 
that  there  was  a  special  reference  in  the  atonement  to  the  elect,  for  the 
Saviour  was  to  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied,  and  this  was 
implied  in  the  very  purpose  of  redemption.  But  the  point  is  that  the 
wording  of  the  last  sentence  makes  the  impression  that  the  reference  is 
to  "the  elect  only."  This  is  not  true,  for  otherwise  the  invitations  of  the 
gospel  could  not  be  made  in  good  faith  the  individual  sinners  of  the 
world.  If  Christ  did  not  in  a  true  sense  die  for  the  world,  the  world 
could  not  be  told  to  come  to  the  gospel  feast  prepared  for  them.  But 
this  is  the  principal  part  of  the  gospel  which  the  church  is  commis- 
sioned to  proclaim.  How,  then,  dare  the  church  obscure  this  message 
by  statements  or  speculations  regarding  God's  secret  purposes  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  main  commission?  The  word  put  into  the  mouth  of 
the  church,  "whosoever  will  let  him  come,"  certainly  implies  that  a  propitia- 
tion has  been  provided  for  every  soul  to  whom  the  message  is  conveyed. 
But  the  provision  is  not  all,  it  must  be  accepted,  even  as  the  invitation 
to  the  feast  and  the  partaking  of  the   feast  are  entirely  different  things. 

To  say  then,  "Neither  are  any  others  redeemed  by  Christ"  is  false, 
because  "redeemed  by  Christ"  is  spoken  of  in  the  sense  of  a  propitiation 
provided,  as  distinguished  from  all  the  other  parts  of  the  process  which 
result  in  actual  salvation.  It  is  true  that  redemption  while  mentioned 
as  a  part  of  a  process,  which  applies  as  a  whole  to  the  elect  only,  may  not 
be  intended  to  deny  in  express  terms  that  redemption  had  not  some 
reference  to  the  non-elect,  but  the  sentence  makes  this  impression  and  is 
certainly  defective  and  misleading.  A  statement  concerning  redemption 
as  it  contemplates  the  world  at  large,  should  certainly  be  added  to  this 
account  of  the  matter.  The  same  defective  view  is  found  in  chapter 
8,  sections  i.  5,  and  8.  Taken  by  itself,  the  account  of  Christ 
as  "the  Mediator  between  God  and  man"  might  seem  to  be  broader,  but 
immediately  he  is  called  "Saviour  of  his  church"  instead  of  Saviour  of  the 
world,  and  it  is  the  people  given  to  him  in  God's  eternal  purpose  to  whom 
redemption    is    again    confined.      The    same    view   is    found   in    section   5. 


loo  INFANT  SALVATION  AND 

Christ  renders  liis  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  "for  all  those  whom 
the  Father  hath  given  unto  him" ;  and  in  section  8  we  are  told  that 
"To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  has  purchased  redemption,  he  doth  cer- 
tainly and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the  same,"  making  the  im- 
pression that  his  redeeming  work  had  sole  reference  to  the  elect.  So 
all  the  effects  of  his  redeeming  work  which  are  summarized  in  what 
follows  are  similarly  confined.  Nowhere  are  we  told  that  Christ  did  any- 
thing for  the  world.  This  is  a  great  defect  which  should  by  all  means 
be  remedied.     Nowhere  is  revision  more  needed  than  in  these  clauses. 

The  defect  of  section  6,  chapter  3,  might  be  remedied  as  follows : 
"While  it  is  true  that  God  provided  a  propitiation  for  the  whole  world, 
and  freely  offers  salvation  to  the  world  upon  condition  of  acceptance  by 
faith  of  the  salvation  thus  provided,  it  is  also  true  that  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
only  Christ's  sheep  hear  his  voice,  so  that  none  are  effectually  called, 
justified,   adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only. 

Ref.  I — I  Tim.  2:  4-6;  i  Tim.  3:  10;  Rom.  5:  25;  i  John  2:2;  John 
4:  14.    Ref.  2 — To  the  old  texts  add  John  6:  44;  John  10:  14,  15,  26-29. 

Before  passing  from  this  subject  let  it  be  noticed  that  while  God's  atti- 
tude and  decree  concerning  the  wicked  has  a  proper  statement  in  section 
7,  chapter  3,  the  corresponding  statement  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  Qu.  13 
appears  to  be  needlessly  harsh  by  reason  of  the  mixing  of  tenses  and 
viewpoints  in  the  clause,  "hath  passed  by  and  foreordained  the  rest  to 
dishonor  and  wrath,  to  be  for  their  sin  inflicted  to  the  praise  of  the  glory 
of  his  justice."  The  perfect  tense,  "hath  passed  by,"  etc.,  corresponds 
with  "hath  elected"  and  "hath  chosen"  just  preceding,  but  this  in  itself 
gives  an  unnecessarily  harsh  effect,  which  is  deepened  by  the  introduction 
of  the  future,  "to  be  for  their  sins  inflicted."  This  makes  the  fore- 
ordination  to  wrath  "stand  out  more  prominently  since  the  infliction  is 
separated  in  time,  so  that  the  space  of  the  ages  is  included  between  the 
two.  Why  mix  up  the  viewpoint  of  a  past  eternity  with  the  end,  and 
further  complicate  it  with  man's  viewpoint  which  appears  in  the  perfect 
tenses  above  mentioned?  It  would  be  better  to  adapt  the  language  to 
that  of  the  Confession  by  obliterating  "hath,"  "to  be"  and  "inflicted." 
While  the  clause  "whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  (favor) 
as  he  pleaseth"  is  correct  when  properly  understood,  if  nothing  is  said 
about  anything  done  for  the  world  at  large  it  tends  to  make  the  impression 
that  all  mercy  and  favor  are  withheld  from  the  wicked,  therefore,  it  is 
all  the  more  necessary  that  that  phase  of  divine  grace  be  presented. 

The  revisions  which  the  writer  has  suggested,  although  so  important 
from  considerations  of  accuracy  and  the  general  acceptability  of  our 
creed,  are  unimportant  from  the  point  of  view  of  orthodoxy,  for  they  do 
not  affect  the  integrity  of  our  system  of  doctrine.  The  aim  is  to  prevent 
well  known  misunderstandings  which  arise  out  of  ambiguities  of  lan- 
guage. If  these  discussions  and  criticisms  receive  such  attention  as  to  pro- 
voke our  people  to  thought,  and  to  a  careful  consideration  of  these  mat- 
ters,   the   writer    will    feel    repaid    for   the   effort    put    forth   to   get   these 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  loi 

subjects  l)efore  the  churcli.  God  grant  that  it  may  lead  to  a  real  revision 
of  our  creed  while  the  church  is  still  orthodox  and  capable  of  making  a 
sound  revision,  and  that  we  who  are  capable  of  such  revision  may  not 
much  longer  delay  to  do  service  to  God  and  humanity  by  making  such 
revision   as   shall   encourage   true   orthodoxy   throughout   the   world. 


